Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × type_ss:"n"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Erklärung zu den internationalen Katalogisierungsprinzipien (2009) 0.01 
    0.008086101 = product of:
  0.040430505 = sum of:
    0.040430505 = weight(_text_:und in 3286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040430505 = score(doc=3286,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.10442211 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.3871834 = fieldWeight in 3286, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3286)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Das "Statement of Principles" - allgemein bekannt als "Paris Principles" - wurde 1961 von der International Conference on Cataloguing Principles verabschiedet. Sein Ziel, als Basis für die internationale Standardisierung in der Katalogisierung zu dienen, ist sicherlich erreicht worden: Die meisten Katalogisierungsregelwerke, die in der Folgezeit weltweit entwickelt wurden, folgten den Prinzipien ganz oder wenigstens in hohem Maß. Mehr als vierzig Jahre später ist das Bedürfnis nach gemeinsamen internationalen Katalogisierungsregeln gewachsen, weil Katalogisierer und Benutzer weltweit OPACs (Online Public Access Catalogues = Online-Benutzerkataloge) nutzen. An der Schwelle des 21. Jahrhunderts hat die IFLA einen Vorstoß unternommen, neue Prinzipien zu erarbeiten, die auf Online-Bibliothekskataloge und auch darüber hinaus anwendbar sind. Das oberste Prinzip ist der Komfort des Katalognutzers. Diese Erklärung ersetzt die "Paris Principles" und weitet den Geltungsbereich von rein textlichen Werken auf alle Materialarten aus und von der Bestimmung und Form einer Eintragung auf alle Aspekte von bibliografischen Daten und Normdaten, die in Bibliothekskatalogen genutzt werden. Sie umfasst nicht nur Prinzipien und Ziele (d. h. Funktionen des Katalogs), sondern auch Regelungen, die international in Katalogisierungsregelwerken enthalten sein sollten, und gibt Anleitung für Suchfunktionen. Die Prinzipien bauen auf den großen Katalogtraditionen der Welt sowie auf dem konzeptionellen Modell der Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) der IFLA auf.
    Content
    Die Erklärung beinhaltet: 1. Geltungsbereich 2. Allgemeine Prinzipien 3. Entitäten, Merkmale und Beziehungen 4. Aufgaben und Funktionen des Katalogs 5. Bibliografische Beschreibung 6. Sucheinstiege 7. Grundlagen für Suchfunktionen
  2. Frodl, C. (Bearb.); Fischer, T. (Bearb.); Baker, T. (Bearb.); Rühle, S. (Bearb.): Deutsche Übersetzung des Dublin-Core-Metadaten-Elemente-Sets (2007) 0.01 
    0.005314728 = product of:
  0.02657364 = sum of:
    0.02657364 = weight(_text_:und in 516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02657364 = score(doc=516,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10442211 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.2544829 = fieldWeight in 516, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=516)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Dublin-Core-Metadaten-Elemente sind ein Standard zur Beschreibung unterschiedlicher Objekte. Die Kernelemente dieses Standards werden in dem "Dublin Core Metadata Element Set" beschrieben (http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dces/). Das Set setzt sich aus 15 Elementen zusammen, die gleichzeitig auch Teil der umfangreicheren "DCMI Metadata Terms" (http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/) sind, wobei die "DCMI Metadata Terms" neben weiteren Elementen auch ein kontrolliertes Vokabular für Objekttypen enthalten. Die Übersetzung entstand zwischen April und Juli 2007 in der KIM-Arbeitsgruppe Übersetzung DCMES (http://www.kim-forum.org/kim-ag/index.htm). Anfang Juli 2007 wurde der Entwurf der Übersetzung in einem Blog veröffentlicht und die Öffentlichkeit aufgefordert, diesen Entwurf zu kommentieren. Anfang August wurden dann die in dem Blog gesammelten Kommentare in der KIM-Arbeitsgruppe Übersetzung DCMES diskutiert und so weit möglich in den Übersetzungsentwurf eingearbeitet.
  3. OWL Web Ontology Language Test Cases (2004) 0.01 
    0.005106646 = product of:
  0.025533231 = sum of:
    0.025533231 = product of:
      0.051066462 = sum of:
        0.051066462 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051066462 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1649855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047114085 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4685, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4685)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    14. 8.2011 13:33:22
  4. ¬The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (2007) 0.00 
    0.0045372373 = product of:
  0.022686187 = sum of:
    0.022686187 = weight(_text_:information in 3395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022686187 = score(doc=3395,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 3395, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3395)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Defines fifteen metadata elements for resource description in a cross-disciplinary information environment
    Editor
    National Information Standards Organization
  5. Köstlbacher, A. (Übers.): OWL Web Ontology Language Überblick (2004) 0.00 
    0.0043394575 = product of:
  0.021697287 = sum of:
    0.021697287 = weight(_text_:und in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021697287 = score(doc=4681,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10442211 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.20778441 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Die OWL Web Ontology Language wurde entwickelt, um es Anwendungen zu ermöglichen den Inhalt von Informationen zu verarbeiten anstatt die Informationen dem Anwender nur zu präsentieren. OWL erleichtert durch zusätzliches Vokabular in Verbindung mit formaler Semantik stärkere Interpretationsmöglichkeiten von Web Inhalten als dies XML, RDF und RDFS ermöglichen. OWL besteht aus drei Untersprachen mit steigender Ausdrucksmächtigkeit: OWL Lite, OWL DL and OWL Full. Dieses Dokument wurde für Leser erstellt, die einen ersten Eindruck von den Möglichkeiten bekommen möchten, die OWL bietet. Es stellt eine Einführung in OWL anhand der Beschreibung der Merkmale der drei Untersprachen von OWL dar. Kenntnisse von RDF Schema sind hilfreich für das Verständnis, aber nicht unbedingt erforderlich. Nach der Lektüre dieses Dokuments können sich interessierte Leser für detailliertere Beschreibungen und ausführliche Beispiele der Merkmale von OWL dem OWL Guide zuwenden. Die normative formale Definition von OWL findet sich unter OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax.
  6. Pepper, S.; Moore, G.; TopicMaps.Org Authoring Group: XML Topic Maps (XTM) 1.0 : TopicMaps.Org Specification (2001) 0.00 
    0.0027223425 = product of:
  0.0136117125 = sum of:
    0.0136117125 = weight(_text_:information in 1623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0136117125 = score(doc=1623,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1623, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1623)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This specification provides a model and grammar for representing the structure of information resources used to define topics, and the associations (relationships) between topics. Names, resources, and relationships are said to be characteristics of abstract subjects, which are called topics. Topics have their characteristics within scopes: i.e. the limited contexts within which the names and resources are regarded as their name, resource, and relationship characteristics. One or more interrelated documents employing this grammar is called a topic map.TopicMaps.Org is an independent consortium of parties developing the applicability of the topic map paradigm [ISO13250] to the World Wide Web by leveraging the XML family of specifications. This specification describes version 1.0 of XML Topic Maps (XTM) 1.0 [XTM], an abstract model and XML grammar for interchanging Web-based topic maps, written by the members of the TopicMaps.Org Authoring Group. More information on XTM and TopicMaps.Org is available at http://www.topicmaps.org/about.html. All versions of the XTM Specification are permanently licensed to the public, as provided by the Charter of TopicMaps.Org.
  7. OWL Web Ontology Language Overview (2004) 0.00 
    0.0027223425 = product of:
  0.0136117125 = sum of:
    0.0136117125 = weight(_text_:information in 4682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0136117125 = score(doc=4682,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4682, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4682)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The OWL Web Ontology Language is designed for use by applications that need to process the content of information instead of just presenting information to humans. OWL facilitates greater machine interpretability of Web content than that supported by XML, RDF, and RDF Schema (RDF-S) by providing additional vocabulary along with a formal semantics. OWL has three increasingly-expressive sublanguages: OWL Lite, OWL DL, and OWL Full. This document is written for readers who want a first impression of the capabilities of OWL. It provides an introduction to OWL by informally describing the features of each of the sublanguages of OWL. Some knowledge of RDF Schema is useful for understanding this document, but not essential. After this document, interested readers may turn to the OWL Guide for more detailed descriptions and extensive examples on the features of OWL. The normative formal definition of OWL can be found in the OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax.
  8. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Document Overview (2009) 0.00 
    0.002245818 = product of:
  0.01122909 = sum of:
    0.01122909 = weight(_text_:information in 3060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01122909 = score(doc=3060,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3060, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3060)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The OWL 2 Web Ontology Language, informally OWL 2, is an ontology language for the Semantic Web with formally defined meaning. OWL 2 ontologies provide classes, properties, individuals, and data values and are stored as Semantic Web documents. OWL 2 ontologies can be used along with information written in RDF, and OWL 2 ontologies themselves are primarily exchanged as RDF documents. This document serves as an introduction to OWL 2 and the various other OWL 2 documents. It describes the syntaxes for OWL 2, the different kinds of semantics, the available profiles (sub-languages), and the relationship between OWL 1 and OWL 2.
  9. OWL Web Ontology Language Guide (2004) 0.00 
    0.0016041556 = product of:
  0.008020778 = sum of:
    0.008020778 = weight(_text_:information in 4687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008020778 = score(doc=4687,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4687, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4687)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The World Wide Web as it is currently constituted resembles a poorly mapped geography. Our insight into the documents and capabilities available are based on keyword searches, abetted by clever use of document connectivity and usage patterns. The sheer mass of this data is unmanageable without powerful tool support. In order to map this terrain more precisely, computational agents require machine-readable descriptions of the content and capabilities of Web accessible resources. These descriptions must be in addition to the human-readable versions of that information. The OWL Web Ontology Language is intended to provide a language that can be used to describe the classes and relations between them that are inherent in Web documents and applications. This document demonstrates the use of the OWL language to - formalize a domain by defining classes and properties of those classes, - define individuals and assert properties about them, and - reason about these classes and individuals to the degree permitted by the formal semantics of the OWL language. The sections are organized to present an incremental definition of a set of classes, properties and individuals, beginning with the fundamentals and proceeding to more complex language components.

Authors

Languages

Themes