Search (337 results, page 1 of 17)

0.094023526 = product of:
  0.18804705 = sum of:
    0.18804705 = sum of:
      0.11142061 = weight(_text_:x in 6882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11142061 = score(doc=6882,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23882076 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056556646 = queryNorm
          0.4665449 = fieldWeight in 6882, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6882)
      0.07662645 = weight(_text_:22 in 6882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07662645 = score(doc=6882,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19805174 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056556646 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6882, 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=6882)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3. 4.1996 15:41:22

Isbn

3-527-40306-X

0.083997 = sum of:
  0.056141842 = product of:
    0.22456737 = sum of:
      0.22456737 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.22456737 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.47948787 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056556646 = queryNorm
          0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.027855152 = product of:
    0.055710305 = sum of:
      0.055710305 = weight(_text_:x in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055710305 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23882076 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056556646 = queryNorm
          0.23327245 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Vgl. unter: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizweHljdbcAhVS16QKHXcFD9QQFjABegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F271200105_Die_Autonomie_des_Menschen_und_der_Maschine_-_gegenwartige_Definitionen_von_Autonomie_zwischen_philosophischem_Hintergrund_und_technologischer_Umsetzbarkeit_Redigierte_Version_der_Magisterarbeit_Karls&usg=AOvVaw06orrdJmFF2xbCCp_hL26q.

Type

x

0.060058396 = sum of:
  0.027548548 = product of:
    0.11019419 = sum of:
      0.11019419 = weight(_text_:authors in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11019419 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.25783125 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056556646 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.03250985 = product of:
    0.0650197 = sum of:
      0.0650197 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0650197 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19805174 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056556646 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The paper discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and /or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the DDC (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.

0.056414112 = product of:
  0.112828225 = sum of:
    0.112828225 = sum of:
      0.06685236 = weight(_text_:x in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06685236 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23882076 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056556646 = queryNorm
          0.27992693 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
      0.045975868 = weight(_text_:22 in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045975868 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19805174 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056556646 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 479, 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=479)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5090125_Evolution_and_Devolution_of_Knowledge_A_Tale_of_Two_Biologies. Vgl. auch: 10.1111/j.1467-9655.2004.00195.x.

Date

23. 1.2022 10:22:18

0.056141842 = product of:
  0.112283684 = sum of:
    0.112283684 = product of:
      0.44913474 = sum of:
        0.44913474 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.44913474 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.47948787 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056556646 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.047332637 = sum of:
  0.027834032 = product of:
    0.11133613 = sum of:
      0.11133613 = weight(_text_:authors in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11133613 = score(doc=1169,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.25783125 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056556646 = queryNorm
          0.43181783 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.019498605 = product of:
    0.03899721 = sum of:
      0.03899721 = weight(_text_:x in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03899721 = score(doc=1169,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23882076 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056556646 = queryNorm
          0.16329071 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Scholarly digital repositories continue to be one of the most dynamic and varying components of the emerging digital research library. Little consensus is evident on matters such as depositing content in disciplinary or institutional repositories, or both. Debates about deposit mandates and access to research have spilled into the political arena and have focused much attention on various aspects of digital repositories, including the economics and patterns of scholarly publishing, systems and technology, governmental and organizational policies, access, accountability, research impact, and the motivations of individual researchers. Scholarly digital repositories are a rich area for both empirical research and philosophical debate, and are the central theme of a growing body of published literature. It is surprising, therefore, that so much is still unknown about the basic nature of digital repositories, including both differences and similarities. As the two Repositories by the Numbers articles in this issue show, digital scholarly repositories are diversifying both in their general nature and in the information they contain. Because there is still much to be discovered or understood at the most basic levels of digital repositories, co-authors Chuck Thomas and Robert H. McDonald and author Cat McDowell offer readers two different but complementary statistical studies of various types of institutional and disciplinary repositories. Re-iterating a theme of many of the recent works presented at the 2nd International Conference on Institutional Repositories, Thomas and McDonald apply statistical techniques to explore patterns of scholarly participation by more than 30,000 authors in several categories of repositories. McDowell reports on her ongoing analysis of the growth and development of institutional repositories in American universities and colleges. Together, these articles reveal new aspects of the digital repository landscape, and present data that will be of immense interest to repository planners and sponsors.
While each article is concerned with different aspects and measurements of repositories, two themes are common to both articles. First, the authors of both articles explain difficulties involved in gathering and comparing data from a variety of systems and organizations. Just as the definition and purpose of a digital scholarly repository is likely to vary among scholars, disciplines and organizations, obtaining and comparing similar data about each analyzed repository was a major challenge for both studies. In some instances, data from individual repositories were so dissimilar, or introduced so many uncertainties, that some repositories could not be measured as part of the study. Co-authors Thomas and McDonald give a lengthy explanation of these issues, and call for the scholarly digital repository community to begin work on some common reporting standards and guidelines. The second theme common to both articles is the value of automated harvesting and analysis of data from repositories. Harnad (2006) explained the value of real-time data gathered from repositories; the Repositories by the Numbers authors detail the manual tabulation and analysis that was required in an environment of inconsistent and uncertain data gathered from a variety of scholarly digital repositories. However, both articles acknowledge the need for more automated harvesters to gather and analyze various data on the characteristics and contents of repositories. Each article analyzes different characteristics of repositories. Even so, important topics like deposit mandates, research impact, and repository categorization inevitably are discussed as important considerations when evaluating many different aspects of scholarly digital repositories. By drawing upon the latest and most authoritative literature across the spectrum of digital repository research and debate, and by introducing new and thoughtful insights into the current state of digital repositories, the authors of both Repositories by the Numbers articles give D-Lib's readers useful reports to consider as they construct their respective pieces of the emerging digital repository.

Source

D-Lib magazine. 13(2007) nos.9/10, x S

0.044913474 = product of:
  0.08982695 = sum of:
    0.08982695 = product of:
      0.3593078 = sum of:
        0.3593078 = weight(_text_:3a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3593078 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.47948787 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056556646 = queryNorm
            0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Ftannerlectures.utah.edu%2F_documents%2Fa-to-z%2Fp%2Fpopper80.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3f4QRTEH-OEBmoYr2J_c7H

0.04456824 = product of:
  0.08913648 = sum of:
    0.08913648 = product of:
      0.17827296 = sum of:
        0.17827296 = weight(_text_:x in 6086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17827296 = score(doc=6086,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23882076 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056556646 = queryNorm
            0.7464718 = fieldWeight in 6086, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6086)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Issue

Version x.

0.04456824 = product of:
  0.08913648 = sum of:
    0.08913648 = product of:
      0.17827296 = sum of:
        0.17827296 = weight(_text_:x in 3221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17827296 = score(doc=3221,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23882076 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056556646 = queryNorm
            0.7464718 = fieldWeight in 3221, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3221)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Isbn

3-8272-9505-X

0.04456824 = product of:
  0.08913648 = sum of:
    0.08913648 = product of:
      0.17827296 = sum of:
        0.17827296 = weight(_text_:x in 3282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17827296 = score(doc=3282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23882076 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056556646 = queryNorm
            0.7464718 = fieldWeight in 3282, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3282)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Isbn

3-8259-1366-X

0.04408829 = sum of:
  0.016233137 = product of:
    0.06493255 = sum of:
      0.06493255 = weight(_text_:authors in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06493255 = score(doc=2525,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25783125 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056556646 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.027855152 = product of:
    0.055710305 = sum of:
      0.055710305 = weight(_text_:x in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055710305 = score(doc=2525,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23882076 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056556646 = queryNorm
          0.23327245 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There is evidence that many individuals and organizations in the library world do not support the work taking place to develop a next generation of the library cataloging rules. The authors describe the tensions existing between those advocating an incremental change to cataloging process and others who desire a bolder library entry into the digital era. Libraries have lost their place as primary information providers, surpassed by more agile (and in many cases wealthier) purveyors of digital information delivery services. Although libraries still manage materials that are not available elsewhere, the library's approach to user service and the user interface is not competing successfully against services like Amazon or Google. If libraries are to avoid further marginalization, they need to make a fundamental change in their approach to user services. The library's signature service, its catalog, uses rules for cataloging that are remnants of a long departed technology: the card catalog. Modifications to the rules, such as those proposed by the Resource Description and Access (RDA) development effort, can only keep us rooted firmly in the 20th, if not the 19th century. A more radical change is required that will contribute to the library of the future, re-imagined and integrated with the chosen workflow of its users.

Source

D-Lib magazine. 13(2007) nos.1/2, x S

0.03899721 = product of:
  0.07799442 = sum of:
    0.07799442 = product of:
      0.15598884 = sum of:
        0.15598884 = weight(_text_:x in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15598884 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23882076 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056556646 = queryNorm
            0.65316284 = fieldWeight in 1204, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1204)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Isbn

3-598-40350-X

0.03899721 = product of:
  0.07799442 = sum of:
    0.07799442 = product of:
      0.15598884 = sum of:
        0.15598884 = weight(_text_:x in 4733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15598884 = score(doc=4733,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.23882076 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056556646 = queryNorm
            0.65316284 = fieldWeight in 4733, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4733)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Pre-publication version für: ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. X, No. X, Article X, Publication date: X 2011.

0.03893839 = sum of:
  0.011363196 = product of:
    0.045452785 = sum of:
      0.045452785 = weight(_text_:authors in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045452785 = score(doc=1077,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25783125 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056556646 = queryNorm
          0.17628889 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.027575193 = product of:
    0.055150386 = sum of:
      0.055150386 = weight(_text_:x in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055150386 = score(doc=1077,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23882076 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056556646 = queryNorm
          0.23092794 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

My thesis discusses two related problems that have taken center stage in the recent literature on concepts: 1) What are the individuation conditions of concepts? Under what conditions is a concept Cv(1) the same concept as a concept Cv(2)? 2) What are the possession conditions of concepts? What conditions must be satisfied for a thinker to have a concept C? The thesis defends a novel account of concepts, which I call "pluralist-contextualist": 1) Pluralism: Different concepts have different kinds of individuation and possession conditions: some concepts are individuated more "coarsely", have less demanding possession conditions and are widely shared, while other concepts are individuated more "finely" and not shared. 2) Contextualism: When a speaker ascribes a propositional attitude to a subject S, or uses his ascription to explain/predict S's behavior, the speaker's intentions in the relevant context determine the correct individuation conditions for the concepts involved in his report. In chapters 1-3 I defend a contextualist, non-Millian theory of propositional attitude ascriptions. Then, I show how contextualism can be used to offer a novel perspective on the problem of concept individuation/possession. More specifically, I employ contextualism to provide a new, more effective argument for Fodor's "publicity principle": if contextualism is true, then certain specific concepts must be shared in order for interpersonally applicable psychological generalizations to be possible. In chapters 4-5 I raise a tension between publicity and another widely endorsed principle, the "Fregean constraint" (FC): subjects who are unaware of certain identity facts and find themselves in so-called "Frege cases" must have distinct concepts for the relevant object x. For instance: the ancient astronomers had distinct concepts (HESPERUS/PHOSPHORUS) for the same object (the planet Venus). First, I examine some leading theories of concepts and argue that they cannot meet both of our constraints at the same time. Then, I offer principled reasons to think that no theory can satisfy (FC) while also respecting publicity. (FC) appears to require a form of holism, on which a concept is individuated by its global inferential role in a subject S and can thus only be shared by someone who has exactly the same inferential dispositions as S. This explains the tension between publicity and (FC), since holism is clearly incompatible with concept shareability. To solve the tension, I suggest adopting my pluralist-contextualist proposal: concepts involved in Frege cases are holistically individuated and not public, while other concepts are more coarsely individuated and widely shared; given this "plurality" of concepts, we will then need contextual factors (speakers' intentions) to "select" the specific concepts to be employed in our intentional generalizations in the relevant contexts. In chapter 6 I develop the view further by contrasting it with some rival accounts. First, I examine a very different kind of pluralism about concepts, which has been recently defended by Daniel Weiskopf, and argue that it is insufficiently radical. Then, I consider the inferentialist accounts defended by authors like Peacocke, Rey and Jackson. Such views, I argue, are committed to an implausible picture of reference determination, on which our inferential dispositions fix the reference of our concepts: this leads to wrong predictions in all those cases of scientific disagreement where two parties have very different inferential dispositions and yet seem to refer to the same natural kind.

Type

x

0.03538975 = sum of:
  0.016233137 = product of:
    0.06493255 = sum of:
      0.06493255 = weight(_text_:authors in 1648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06493255 = score(doc=1648,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25783125 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056556646 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 1648, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1648)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.019156612 = product of:
    0.038313225 = sum of:
      0.038313225 = weight(_text_:22 in 1648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038313225 = score(doc=1648,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19805174 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056556646 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1648, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1648)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is an edited collection of 39 original papers and as many commentaries and replies. The target papers and replies were written by senior members of the MIND Group, while all commentaries were written by junior group members. All papers and commentaries have undergone a rigorous process of anonymous peer review, during which the junior members of the MIND Group acted as reviewers. The final versions of all the target articles, commentaries and replies have undergone additional editorial review. Besides offering a cross-section of ongoing, cutting-edge research in philosophy and cognitive science, this collection is also intended to be a free electronic resource for teaching. It therefore also contains a selection of online supporting materials, pointers to video and audio files and to additional free material supplied by the 92 authors represented in this volume. We will add more multimedia material, a searchable literature database, and tools to work with the online version in the future. All contributions to this collection are strictly open access. They can be downloaded, printed, and reproduced by anyone.

Date

27. 1.2015 11:48:22

0.03527063 = sum of:
  0.012986509 = product of:
    0.051946037 = sum of:
      0.051946037 = weight(_text_:authors in 1208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.051946037 = score(doc=1208,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25783125 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056556646 = queryNorm
          0.20147301 = fieldWeight in 1208, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1208)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02228412 = product of:
    0.04456824 = sum of:
      0.04456824 = weight(_text_:x in 1208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04456824 = score(doc=1208,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23882076 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056556646 = queryNorm
          0.18661796 = fieldWeight in 1208, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1208)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

For those of us still struggling with basic concepts regarding metadata in this brave new world in which cataloging means much more than MARC, an article like this is welcome indeed. In this 30.000-foot overview of the metadata landscape, broad issues such as modularity, namespaces, extensibility, refinement, and multilingualism are discussed. In addition, "practicalities" like application profiles, syntax and semantics, metadata registries, and automated generation of metadata are explained. Although this piece is not exhaustive of high-level metadata issues, it is nonetheless a useful description of some of the most important issues surrounding metadata creation and use. The rapid changes in the means of information access occasioned by the emergence of the World Wide Web have spawned an upheaval in the means of describing and managing information resources. Metadata is a primary tool in this work, and an important link in the value chain of knowledge economies. Yet there is much confusion about how metadata should be integrated into information systems. How is it to be created or extended? Who will manage it? How can it be used and exchanged? Whence comes its authority? Can different metadata standards be used together in a given environment? These and related questions motivate this paper. The authors hope to make explicit the strong foundations of agreement shared by two prominent metadata Initiatives: the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) and the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Learning Object Metadata (LOM) Working Group. This agreement emerged from a joint metadata taskforce meeting in Ottawa in August, 2001. By elucidating shared principles and practicalities of metadata, we hope to raise the level of understanding among our respective (and shared) constituents, so that all stakeholders can move forward more decisively to address their respective problems. The ideas in this paper are divided into two categories. Principles are those concepts judged to be common to all domains of metadata and which might inform the design of any metadata schema or application. Practicalities are the rules of thumb, constraints, and infrastructure issues that emerge from bringing theory into practice in the form of useful and sustainable systems.

Source

D-Lib magazine. 8(2002) no.4, x S

0.03342618 = product of:
  0.06685236 = sum of:
    0.06685236 = product of:
      0.13370472 = sum of:
        0.13370472 = weight(_text_:x in 3637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13370472 = score(doc=3637,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23882076 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056556646 = queryNorm
            0.55985385 = fieldWeight in 3637, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3637)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Isbn

3-411-06921-X

0.03342618 = product of:
  0.06685236 = sum of:
    0.06685236 = product of:
      0.13370472 = sum of:
        0.13370472 = weight(_text_:x in 4468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13370472 = score(doc=4468,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23882076 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056556646 = queryNorm
            0.55985385 = fieldWeight in 4468, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4468)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Isbn

3-7723-8112-X

0.03342618 = product of:
  0.06685236 = sum of:
    0.06685236 = product of:
      0.13370472 = sum of:
        0.13370472 = weight(_text_:x in 5334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13370472 = score(doc=5334,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23882076 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056556646 = queryNorm
            0.55985385 = fieldWeight in 5334, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5334)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Isbn

3-931424-09-X

0.03342618 = product of:
  0.06685236 = sum of:
    0.06685236 = product of:
      0.13370472 = sum of:
        0.13370472 = weight(_text_:x in 5968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13370472 = score(doc=5968,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23882076 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056556646 = queryNorm
            0.55985385 = fieldWeight in 5968, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5968)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Issue

Für Windows 3.x und Windows95