Search (41 results, page 2 of 3)

0.008567562 = product of:
  0.03427025 = sum of:
    0.03427025 = product of:
      0.0685405 = sum of:
        0.0685405 = weight(_text_:software in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0685405 = score(doc=1239,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.37958977 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Do a search on AltaVista for "algebra". What do you get? Nearly 700,000 hits, of which AltaVista will allow you to view only what it determines is the top 200. Major search engines such as AltaVista, Excite, HotBot, Lycos, and the like continue to provide a valuable service, but with the recent growth of the Internet, topic-specific sites that provide some organization to the topic are increasingly important. It the goal of the Mathematics Archives to make it easier for the ordinary user to find useful mathematical information on the Web. The Mathematics Archives (http://archives.math.utk.edu) is a multipurpose site for mathematics on the Internet. The focus is on materials which can be used in mathematics education (primarily at the undergraduate level). Resources available range from shareware and public domain software to electronic proceedings of various conferences, to an extensive collection of annotated links to other mathematical sites. All materials on the Archives are categorized and cross referenced for the convenience of the user. Several search mechanisms are provided. The Harvest search engine is implemented to provide a full text search of most of the pages on the Archives. The software we house and our list of annotated links to mathematical sites are both categorized by subject matter. Each of these collections has a specialized search engine to assist the user in locating desired material. Services at the Mathematics Archives are divided up into five broad topics: * Links organized by Mathematical Topics * Software * Teaching Materials * Other Math Archives Features * Other Links

0.007914375 = product of:
  0.0316575 = sum of:
    0.0316575 = product of:
      0.063315 = sum of:
        0.063315 = weight(_text_:software in 985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063315 = score(doc=985,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.35064998 = fieldWeight in 985, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=985)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die EURODOC-Datenbank enthält ausführliche und einheitlich strukturierte Beschreibungen von Produkten des Dokument-Managementmarktes (Software-Systeme, -komponenten und Diennstleistungen). Die Benutzeroberfläche ist dreisprachig (dt., engl., franz.). Basis der Produktinformationen ist ein standardisierter Fragebogen, der als Kriterienkatalog für die Suche nach geeigneten Produkten verwendet wird. Daneben ist auch die Volltextsuche möglich. Aufgrund der gefundenen Produkte / Dienstleistungen und des nach Wünschen des Anwenders eingeschränkten Fragenkatalogs können kompakte, übersichtliche Reports ausgedruckt werden. Die Daten können für weitere Auswertungen in Tabellenkalkulationsprogrammen bereitgestellt werden

0.007914375 = product of:
  0.0316575 = sum of:
    0.0316575 = product of:
      0.063315 = sum of:
        0.063315 = weight(_text_:software in 124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063315 = score(doc=124,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.35064998 = fieldWeight in 124, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=124)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Beitrag für: Proceedings of the ACL SIGDAT-Workshop. Dublin, Ireland, 1995. Für die Software TreeTagger, vgl.: http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~schmid/.

0.007708307 = product of:
  0.030833228 = sum of:
    0.030833228 = product of:
      0.061666455 = sum of:
        0.061666455 = weight(_text_:22 in 6474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061666455 = score(doc=6474,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6474, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6474)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

16. 2.1997 16:22:51

0.007708307 = product of:
  0.030833228 = sum of:
    0.030833228 = product of:
      0.061666455 = sum of:
        0.061666455 = weight(_text_:22 in 2966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061666455 = score(doc=2966,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2966, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2966)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

13. 3.1996 21:22:40

0.007708307 = product of:
  0.030833228 = sum of:
    0.030833228 = product of:
      0.061666455 = sum of:
        0.061666455 = weight(_text_:22 in 2967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061666455 = score(doc=2967,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2967, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2967)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

13. 3.1996 21:22:40

0.006925077 = product of:
  0.027700309 = sum of:
    0.027700309 = product of:
      0.055400617 = sum of:
        0.055400617 = weight(_text_:software in 3289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055400617 = score(doc=3289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.30681872 = fieldWeight in 3289, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Hypermedia and multimedia have been placed rather uncritically at the centre of current developments in learning technology. This paper seeks to ask some fundamental questions about how learning is best supported by hypermedia, and concludes that the most successful aspects are not those normally emphasized. A striking observation is that the best learning experience is enjoyed by hypermedia courseware authors rather that students. This is understandable from a constructivist view of learning, in which the key aim is to engage the learner in carrying out a task which leads to better comprehension. Deep learning is a by-product of comprehension. The paper discusses some approaches to designing software - cognitive tools for learning - which illustrate the constructivist approach

0.0061666453 = product of:
  0.024666581 = sum of:
    0.024666581 = product of:
      0.049333163 = sum of:
        0.049333163 = weight(_text_:22 in 1088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049333163 = score(doc=1088,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1088, 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=1088)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: Cataloging and classification quarterly 19(1994) no.1, S.134-137 (M. Carpenter). - Inzwischen existiert auch eine Windows-Version: 'Electronic Dewey for Windows', vgl. Knowledge organization 22(1995) no.1, S.17

0.0061666453 = product of:
  0.024666581 = sum of:
    0.024666581 = product of:
      0.049333163 = sum of:
        0.049333163 = weight(_text_:22 in 4261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049333163 = score(doc=4261,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4261, 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=4261)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

17. 7.2002 19:22:06

0.005596308 = product of:
  0.022385232 = sum of:
    0.022385232 = product of:
      0.044770464 = sum of:
        0.044770464 = weight(_text_:software in 1669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044770464 = score(doc=1669,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.24794699 = fieldWeight in 1669, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1669)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

After a short outline of problems, possibilities and difficulties of systematic information retrieval on the Internet and a description of efforts for development in this area, a specification of the terminology for this report is required. Although the process of retrieval is generally seen as an iterative process of browsing and information retrieval and several important services on the net have taken this fact into consideration, the emphasis of this report lays on the general retrieval tools for the whole of Internet. In order to be able to evaluate the differences, possibilities and restrictions of the different services it is necessary to begin with organizing the existing varieties in a typological/ taxonomical survey. The possibilities and weaknesses will be briefly compared and described for the most important services in the categories robot-based WWW-catalogues of different types, list- or form-based catalogues and simultaneous or collected search services respectively. It will however for different reasons not be possible to rank them in order of "best" services. Still more important are the weaknesses and problems common for all attempts of indexing the Internet. The problems of the quality of the input, the technical performance and the general problem of indexing virtual hypertext are shown to be at least as difficult as the different aspects of harvesting, indexing and information retrieval. Some of the attempts made in the area of further development of retrieval services will be mentioned in relation to descriptions of the contents of documents and standardization efforts. Internet harvesting and indexing technology and retrieval software is thoroughly reviewed. Details about all services and software are listed in analytical forms in Annex 1-3.

0.005395815 = product of:
  0.02158326 = sum of:
    0.02158326 = product of:
      0.04316652 = sum of:
        0.04316652 = weight(_text_:22 in 4661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04316652 = score(doc=4661,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4661, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4661)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 7.2000 18:45:51

0.005395815 = product of:
  0.02158326 = sum of:
    0.02158326 = product of:
      0.04316652 = sum of:
        0.04316652 = weight(_text_:22 in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04316652 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

7. 5.2000 10:38:22

0.005395815 = product of:
  0.02158326 = sum of:
    0.02158326 = product of:
      0.04316652 = sum of:
        0.04316652 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04316652 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2016 17:30:31

0.0046249838 = product of:
  0.018499935 = sum of:
    0.018499935 = product of:
      0.03699987 = sum of:
        0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03699987 = score(doc=4189,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4189, 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=4189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:35:09

0.0046249838 = product of:
  0.018499935 = sum of:
    0.018499935 = product of:
      0.03699987 = sum of:
        0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 6478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03699987 = score(doc=6478,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6478, 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=6478)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

16. 8.2001 18:03:22

0.0046249838 = product of:
  0.018499935 = sum of:
    0.018499935 = product of:
      0.03699987 = sum of:
        0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03699987 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2655, 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=2655)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2016 17:30:31

0.0039571873 = product of:
  0.01582875 = sum of:
    0.01582875 = product of:
      0.0316575 = sum of:
        0.0316575 = weight(_text_:software in 6068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0316575 = score(doc=6068,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.17532499 = fieldWeight in 6068, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6068)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This picture will rapidly change. The twin challenges of massive information overload via the web and ubiquitous computers present us with an unavoidable task: developing techniques to handle multilingual and multi-modal information robustly and efficiently, with as high quality performance as possible. The most effective way for us to address such a mammoth task, and to ensure that our various techniques and applications fit together, is to start talking across the artificial research boundaries. Extending the current technologies will require integrating the various capabilities into multi-functional and multi-lingual natural language systems. However, at this time there is no clear vision of how these technologies could or should be assembled into a coherent framework. What would be involved in connecting a speech recognition system to an information retrieval engine, and then using machine translation and summarization software to process the retrieved text? How can traditional parsing and generation be enhanced with statistical techniques? What would be the effect of carefully crafted lexicons on traditional information retrieval? At which points should machine translation be interleaved within information retrieval systems to enable multilingual processing?

0.0039571873 = product of:
  0.01582875 = sum of:
    0.01582875 = product of:
      0.0316575 = sum of:
        0.0316575 = weight(_text_:software in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0316575 = score(doc=2596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.17532499 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Ramana Rao (Inxight, Palo Alto, CA) 7 ± 2 Insights on achieving Effective Information Access Session One: Updates and a twelve month perspective Danny Sullivan (Search Engine Watch, US / England) Portalization and other search trends Carol Tenopir (University of Tennessee) Search realities faced by end users and professional searchers Session Two: Today's search engines and beyond Daniel Hoogterp (Retrieval Technologies, McLean, VA) Effective presentation and utilization of search techniques Rick Kenny (Fulcrum Technologies, Ontario, Canada) Beyond document clustering: The knowledge impact statement Gary Stock (Ingenius, Kalamazoo, MI) Automated change monitoring Gary Culliss (Direct Hit, Wellesley Hills, MA) User popularity ranked search engines Byron Dom (IBM, CA) Automatically finding the best pages on the World Wide Web (CLEVER) Peter Tomassi (LookSmart, San Francisco, CA) Adding human intellect to search technology Session Three: Panel discussion: Human v automated categorization and editing Ev Brenner (New York, NY)- Chairman James Callan (University of Massachusetts, MA) Marc Krellenstein (Northern Light Technology, Cambridge, MA) Dan Miller (Ask Jeeves, Berkeley, CA) Session Four: Updates and a twelve month perspective Steve Arnold (AIT, Harrods Creek, KY) Review: The leading edge in search and retrieval software Ellen Voorhees (NIST, Gaithersburg, MD) TREC update Session Five: Search engines now and beyond Intelligent Agents John Snyder (Muscat, Cambridge, England) Practical issues behind intelligent agents Text summarization Therese Firmin, (Dept of Defense, Ft George G. Meade, MD) The TIPSTER/SUMMAC evaluation of automatic text summarization systems Cross language searching Elizabeth Liddy (TextWise, Syracuse, NY) A conceptual interlingua approach to cross-language retrieval. Video search and retrieval Armon Amir (IBM, Almaden, CA) CueVideo: Modular system for automatic indexing and browsing of video/audio Speech recognition Michael Witbrock (Lycos, Waltham, MA) Retrieval of spoken documents Visualization James A. Wise (Integral Visuals, Richland, WA) Information visualization in the new millennium: Emerging science or passing fashion? Text mining David Evans (Claritech, Pittsburgh, PA) Text mining - towards decision support

0.0039571873 = product of:
  0.01582875 = sum of:
    0.01582875 = product of:
      0.0316575 = sum of:
        0.0316575 = weight(_text_:software in 5069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0316575 = score(doc=5069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.17532499 = fieldWeight in 5069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

As mentioned above, the guidelines are intended to apply to all types of catalogue, including Web-based catalogues, GUI-based interfaces, and Z39.50-web interfaces. The focus of the guidelines is on the display of cataloguing information (as opposed to circulation, serials check-in, fund accounting, acquisitions, or bindery information). However, some general statements are made concerning the value of displaying to users information that is drawn from these other types of records. The guidelines do not attempt to cover HELP screens, searching methods, or command names and functions. Thus, the guidelines do not directly address the difference between menu-mode access (so common now in GUI and Web interfaces) vs. command-mode access (often completely unavailable in GUI and Web interfaces). However, note that in menu-mode access, the user often has to go through many more screens to attain results than in command-mode access, and each of these screens constitutes a display. The intent is to recommend a standard set of display defaults, defined as features that should be provided for users who have not selected other options, including users who want to begin searching right away without much instruction. It is not the intent to restrict the creativity of system designers who want to build in further options to offer to advanced users (beyond the defaults), advanced users being those people who are willing to put some time into learning how to use the system in more sophisticated and complex ways. The Task Force is aware of the fact that many existing systems are not capable of following all of the recommendations in this document. We hope that existing systems will attempt to work toward the implementation of the guidelines as they develop new versions of their software in the future.

0.0039571873 = product of:
  0.01582875 = sum of:
    0.01582875 = product of:
      0.0316575 = sum of:
        0.0316575 = weight(_text_:software in 1248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0316575 = score(doc=1248,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.17532499 = fieldWeight in 1248, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1248)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

For several years the Digital Library Research Group at Cornell University and the Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI) have been engaged in research focused on the design and development of infrastructures for open architecture, confederated digital libraries. The goal of this effort is to achieve interoperability and extensibility of digital library systems through the definition of key digital library services and their open interfaces, allowing flexible interaction of existing services and augmentation of the infrastructure with new services. Some aspects of this research have included the development and deployment of the Dienst software, the Handle System®, and the architecture of digital objects and repositories. In this paper, we describe the joint effort by Cornell and CNRI to prototype a rich and deployable architecture for interoperable digital objects and repositories. This effort has challenged us to move theories of interoperability closer to practice. The Cornell/CNRI collaboration builds on two existing projects focusing on the development of interoperable digital libraries. Details relating to the technology of these projects are described elsewhere. Both projects were strongly influenced by the fundamental abstractions of repositories and digital objects as articulated by Kahn and Wilensky in A Framework for Distributed Digital Object Services. Furthermore, both programs were influenced by the container architecture described in the Warwick Framework, and by the notions of distributed dynamic objects presented by Lagoze and Daniel in their Distributed Active Relationship work. With these common roots, one would expect that the CNRI and Cornell repositories would be at least theoretically interoperable. However, the actual test would be the extent to which our independently developed repositories were practically interoperable. This paper focuses on the definition of interoperability in the joint Cornell/CNRI work and the set of experiments conducted to formally test it. Our motivation for this work is the eventual deployment of formally tested reference implementations of the repository architecture for experimentation and development by fellow digital library researchers. In Section 2, we summarize the digital object and repository approach that was the focus of our interoperability experiments. In Section 3, we describe the set of experiments that progressively tested interoperability at increasing levels of functionality. In Section 4, we discuss general conclusions, and in Section 5, we give a preview of our future work, including our plans to evolve our experimentation to the point of defining a set of formal metrics for measuring interoperability for repositories and digital objects. This is still a work in progress that is expected to undergo additional refinements during its development.