Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01062654 = product of:
  0.03187962 = sum of:
    0.016011827 = product of:
      0.032023653 = sum of:
        0.032023653 = weight(_text_:29 in 1289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032023653 = score(doc=1289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1289, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.01586779 = product of:
      0.03173558 = sum of:
        0.03173558 = weight(_text_:22 in 1289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03173558 = score(doc=1289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1289, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

Date

20. 1.2008 17:28:29

0.0023239423 = product of:
  0.013943653 = sum of:
    0.013943653 = product of:
      0.027887305 = sum of:
        0.027887305 = weight(_text_:methods in 1292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027887305 = score(doc=1292,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.17767884 = fieldWeight in 1292, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1292)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

Traditional print reference guides often have two methods of finding information: an order (alphabetical for dictionaries and encyclopedias, by subject hierarchy in the case of thesauri) and indices (ordered lists, with a more complete listing of words and concepts, which refers back to original content from the main body of the book). A user of such traditional print reference guides who is looking for information will either browse through the ordered information in the main body of the reference book, or scan through the indices to find what is necessary. The advent of the computer allows for much more rapid electronic searches of the same information, and for multiple layers of indices. Users can either search through information by entering a keyword, or users can browse through the information through an outline index, which represents the information contained in the main body of the data. There are two traditional user interfaces for such applications. First, the user may type text into a search field and in response, a list of results is returned to the user. The user then selects a returned entry and may page through the resulting information. Alternatively, the user may choose from a list of words from an index. For example, software thesaurus applications, in which a user attempts to find synonyms, antonyms, homonyms, etc. for a selected word, are usually implemented using the conventional search and presentation techniques discussed above. The presentation of results only allows for a one-dimensional order of data at any one time. In addition, only a limited number of results can be shown at once, and selecting a result inevitably leads to another page-if the result is not satisfactory, the users must search again. Finally, it is difficult to present information about the manner in which the search results are related, or to present quantitative information about the results without causing confusion. Therefore, there exists a need for a multidimensional graphical display of information, in particular with respect to information relating to the meaning of words and their relationships to other words. There further exists a need to present large amounts of information in a way that can be manipulated by the user, without the user losing his place. And there exists a need for more fluid, intuitive and powerful thesaurus functionality that invites the exploration of language.

0.0022238651 = product of:
  0.01334319 = sum of:
    0.01334319 = product of:
      0.02668638 = sum of:
        0.02668638 = weight(_text_:29 in 548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02668638 = score(doc=548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 548, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Extensions and corrections to the UDC. 29(2007), S.297-300

0.0017429566 = product of:
  0.010457739 = sum of:
    0.010457739 = product of:
      0.020915478 = sum of:
        0.020915478 = weight(_text_:methods in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020915478 = score(doc=1197,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.13325913 = fieldWeight in 1197, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1197)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

When our experience of information discovery is mediated by a computer, we neither move ourselves nor the monitor. We have only the computer's monitor to view, and the keyboard and/or mouse to manipulate what is displayed there. Computer interfaces often reduce our ability to get a sense of the contents of a library: we don't perceive the scope of the library: its breadth, (the quantity of materials/information), its density (how full the shelves are, how thorough the collection is for individual topics), or the general audience for the materials (e.g., whether the materials are appropriate for middle school students, college professors, etc.). Additionally, many computer interfaces for information discovery require users to scroll through long lists, to click numerous navigational links and to read a lot of text to find the exact text they want to read. Text features of resources are almost always presented alphabetically, and the number of items in these alphabetical lists sometimes can be very long. Alphabetical ordering is certainly an improvement over no ordering, but it generally has no bearing on features with an inherent non-alphabetical ordering (e.g., dates of historical events), nor does it necessarily group similar items together. Alphabetical ordering of resources is analogous to one of the most familiar complaints about dictionaries: sometimes you need to know how to spell a word in order to look up its correct spelling in the dictionary. Some have used technology to replicate the appearance of physical libraries, presenting rooms of bookcases and shelves of book spines in virtual 3D environments. This approach presents a problem, as few book spines can be displayed legibly on a monitor screen. This article examines the role of book spines, call numbers, and other traditional organizational and information discovery concepts, and integrates this knowledge with information visualization techniques to show how computers and monitors can meet or exceed similar information discovery methods. The goal is to tap the unique potentials of current information visualization approaches in order to improve information discovery, offer new services, and most important of all, improve user satisfaction. We need to capitalize on what computers do well while bearing in mind their limitations. The intent is to design GUIs to optimize utility and provide a positive experience for the user.

0.0014524639 = product of:
  0.008714783 = sum of:
    0.008714783 = product of:
      0.017429566 = sum of:
        0.017429566 = weight(_text_:methods in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017429566 = score(doc=1211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.11104927 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

From the user's perspective, however, it is still difficult to use current information retrieval systems. Users frequently have problems expressing their information needs and translating those needs into queries. This is partly due to the fact that information needs cannot be expressed appropriately in systems terms. It is not unusual for users to input search terms that are different from the index terms information systems use. Various methods have been proposed to help users choose search terms and articulate queries. One widely used approach is to incorporate into the information system a thesaurus-like component that represents both the important concepts in a particular subject area and the semantic relationships among those concepts. Unfortunately, the development and use of thesauri is not without its own problems. The thesaurus employed in a specific information system has often been developed for a general subject area and needs significant enhancement to be tailored to the information system where it is to be used. This thesaurus development process, if done manually, is both time consuming and labor intensive. Usage of a thesaurus in searching is complex and may raise barriers for the user. For illustration purposes, let us consider two scenarios of thesaurus usage. In the first scenario the user inputs a search term and the thesaurus then displays a matching set of related terms. Without an overview of the thesaurus - and without the ability to see the matching terms in the context of other terms - it may be difficult to assess the quality of the related terms in order to select the correct term. In the second scenario the user browses the whole thesaurus, which is organized as in an alphabetically ordered list. The problem with this approach is that the list may be long, and neither does it show users the global semantic relationship among all the listed terms.