Search (31 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0019958385 = product of:
  0.017962547 = sum of:
    0.017962547 = weight(_text_:of in 2566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017962547 = score(doc=2566,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 2566, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2566)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

We determine analytically the modulus of the second eigenvalue for the web hyperlink matrix used by Google for computing PageRank. Specifically, we prove the following statement: "For any matrix A=(cP + (1-c)E)**T, where P is an nxn row-stochasticmatrix, E is a nonnegative nxn rank-one row-stochastic matrix, and 0<=c<=1, the second eigenvalue of A has modulus Betrag (Lambda_sub2)<=c. Furthermore, if P has at least two irreducible closed subsets, the second eigenvalue Lambda_sub2 = c." This statement has implications for the convergence rate of the standard PageRank algorithm as the web scales, for the stability of PageRank to perturbations to the link structure of the web, for the detection of Google spammers, and for the design of algorithms to speed up PageRank.

0.0018816947 = product of:
  0.016935252 = sum of:
    0.016935252 = weight(_text_:of in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016935252 = score(doc=5013,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The destabilizing influences of the Web, widespread ownership of personal computers, and rising computer literacy have created an era of discontinuous change in research libraries a time when the cumulated assets of the past do not guarantee future success. The library catalog is such an asset. Today, a large and growing number of students and scholars routinely bypass library catalogs in favor of other discovery tools, and the catalog represents a shrinking proportion of the universe of scholarly information. The catalog is in decline, its processes and structures are unsustainable, and change needs to be swift. At the same time, books and serials are not dead, and they are not yet digital. Notwithstanding widespread expansion of digitization projects, ubiquitous e-journals, and a market that seems poised to move to e-books, the role of catalog records in discovery and retrieval of the world's library collections seems likely to continue for at least a couple of decades and probably longer. This report, commissioned by the Library of Congress (LC), offers an analysis of the current situation, options for revitalizing research library catalogs, a feasibility assessment, a vision for change, and a blueprint for action. Library decision makers are the primary audience for this report, whose aim is to elicit support, dialogue, collaboration, and movement toward solutions. Readers from the business community, particularly those that directly serve libraries, may find the report helpful for defining research and development efforts. The same is true for readers from membership organizations such as OCLC Online Computer Library Center, the Research Libraries Group, the Association for Research Libraries, the Council on Library and Information Resources, the Coalition for Networked Information, and the Digital Library Federation. Library managers and practitioners from all functional groups are likely to take an interest in the interview findings and in specific actions laid out in the blueprint.

0.0018816947 = product of:
  0.016935252 = sum of:
    0.016935252 = weight(_text_:of in 755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016935252 = score(doc=755,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 755, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=755)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Consolidated statement of financial position of MOZILLA FOUNDATION AND SUBSIDIARY (Mozilla) as of December 31, 2006 and 2005 and the related consolidated statements of activities and changes in net assets and cash flows for the years then ended. - Angaben zu den Einnahmen der Mozilla Foundation durch die Einbindung des Google-Suchfesters in den Browser.

0.0018816947 = product of:
  0.016935252 = sum of:
    0.016935252 = weight(_text_:of in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016935252 = score(doc=2429,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

If one follows any of the major cataloging or library blogs these days, it is obvious that the topic of FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) has increasingly become one of major significance for the library community. What began as a proposed conceptual entity-relationship model for improving the structure of bibliographic records has become a hotly debated topic with many tangled threads that have implications not just for cataloging but for many aspects of libraries and librarianship. In the fall of 2005, the Perseus Project experimented with creating a FRBRized catalog for its current online classics collection, a collection that consists of several hundred classical texts in Greek and Latin as well as reference works and scholarly commentaries regarding these works. In the last two years, with funding from the Mellon Foundation, Perseus has amassed and digitized a growing collection of classical texts (some as image books on our own servers that will eventually be made available through Fedora), and some available through the Open Content Alliance (OCA)2, and created FRBRized cataloging data for these texts. This work was done largely as an experiment to see the potential of the FRBR model for creating a specialized catalog for classics.
Our catalog should not be called a FRBR catalog perhaps, but instead a "FRBR Inspired catalog." As such our main goal has been "practical findability," we are seeking to support the four identified user tasks of the FRBR model, or to "Search, Identify, Select, and Obtain," rather than to create a FRBR catalog, per se. By encoding as much information as possible in the MODS and MADS records we have created, we believe that useful searching will be supported, that by using unique identifiers for works and authors users will be able to identify that the entity they have located is the desired one, that by encoding expression level information (such as the language of the work, the translator, etc) users will be able to select which expression of a work they are interested in, and that by supplying links to different online manifestations that users will be able to obtain access to a digital copy of a work. This white paper will discuss previous and current efforts by the Perseus Project in creating a FRBRized catalog, including the cataloging workflow, lessons learned during the process and will also seek to place this work in the larger context of research regarding FRBR, cataloging, Library 2.0 and the Semantic Web, and the growing importance of the FRBR model in the face of growing million book digital libraries.

0.0018408239 = product of:
  0.016567415 = sum of:
    0.016567415 = weight(_text_:of in 2560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016567415 = score(doc=2560,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 2560, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2560)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

We observe that the convergence patterns of pages in the PageRank algorithm have a nonuniform distribution. Specifically, many pages converge to their true PageRank quickly, while relatively few pages take a much longer time to converge. Furthermore, we observe that these slow-converging pages are generally those pages with high PageRank.We use this observation to devise a simple algorithm to speed up the computation of PageRank, in which the PageRank of pages that have converged are not recomputed at each iteration after convergence. This algorithm, which we call Adaptive PageRank, speeds up the computation of PageRank by nearly 30%.

0.0016464829 = product of:
  0.014818345 = sum of:
    0.014818345 = weight(_text_:of in 6479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014818345 = score(doc=6479,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 6479, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6479)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

0.0016464829 = product of:
  0.014818345 = sum of:
    0.014818345 = weight(_text_:of in 2057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014818345 = score(doc=2057,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 2057, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2057)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This guide introduces the Protégé-OWL plugin for creating OWL ontologies. Chapter 3 gives a brief overview of the OWL ontology language. Chapter 4 focuses an building an OWL-DL ontology and using a Description Logic Reasoner to check the consistency of the ontology and automatically compute the ontology class hierarchy. Chapter 6 describes some OWL constructs such as has Value Restrictions and Enumerated classes, which aren't directly used in the main tutorial. Chapter 7 describes Namespaces, Importing ontologies and various features and utilities of the Protégé-OWL application.

Imprint

Manchester : University of Manchester

0.001330559 = product of:
  0.011975031 = sum of:
    0.011975031 = weight(_text_:of in 5016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011975031 = score(doc=5016,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 5016, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5016)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The charge for the SAC Subcommittee on Metadata and Subject Analysis states: Identify and study the major issues surrounding the use of metadata in the subject analysis and classification of digital resources. Provide discussion forums and programs relevant to these issues. Discussion forums should begin by Annual 1998. The continued need for the subcommittee should be reexamined by SAC no later than 2001.

0.0011760591 = product of:
  0.010584532 = sum of:
    0.010584532 = weight(_text_:of in 2436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010584532 = score(doc=2436,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 2436, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2436)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

RDA provides a set of guidelines and instructions on formulating data to support resource discovery. The data created using RDA to describe a resource are designed to assist users performing the following tasks: find-i.e., to find resources that correspond to the user's stated search criteria: identify-i.e., to confirm that the resource described corresponds to the resource sought, or to distinguish between two or more resources with similar characteristics select-i.e., to select a resource that is appropriate to the user's needs obtain-i.e., to acquire or access the resource described. The data created using RDA to describe an entity associated with a resource (a person, family, corporate body, concept, etc.) are designed to assist users performing the following tasks: find-i.e., to find information on that entity and on resources associated with the entity identify-i.e., to confirm that the entity described corresponds to the entity sought, or to distinguish between two or more entities with similar names, etc. clarify-i.e., to clarify the relationship between two or more such entities, or to clarify the relationship between the entity described and a name by which that entity is known understand-i.e., to understand why a particular name or title, or form of name or title, has been chosen as the preferred name or title for the entity.

Editor

Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA

Issue

Full draft of RDA - 11/20/08.

0.0011760591 = product of:
  0.010584532 = sum of:
    0.010584532 = weight(_text_:of in 2398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010584532 = score(doc=2398,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 2398, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2398)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

It may be jumping the gun a bit to review this publication before it is actually published, but we are nothing if not current here at Current Cites, so we will do it anyway (so sue us!). This publication-in-process is a joint effort of the Visual Resources Association and the Digital Library Federation. It aims to "provide guidelines for selecting, ordering, and formatting data used to populate catalog records" relating to cultural works. Although this work is far from finished (Chapters 1, 2, 7, and 9 are available, as well as front and back matter), the authors are making it available so pratictioners can use it and respond with information about how it can be improved to better aid their work. A stated goal is to publish it in print at some point in the future. Besides garnering support from the organizations named above as well as the Getty, the Mellon Foundation and others, the effort is being guided by experienced professionals at the top of their field. Get the point? If you're involved with creating metadata relating to any type of cultural object and/or images of such, this will need to be either on your bookshelf, or bookmarked in your browser, or both

7.12948E-4 = product of:
  0.0064165317 = sum of:
    0.0064165317 = weight(_text_:of in 2974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0064165317 = score(doc=2974,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.10473771 = fieldWeight in 2974, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2974)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Wissen wird im modernen Wirtschaftsgeschehen zunehmend als eine wettbewerbsentscheidende Ressource angesehen. Es ist zu einem der wichtigsten Werte für Unternehmen geworden, um im globalen Wettbewerb bestehen zu können. Die Bemühungen der Unternehmen um Generierung und Akquisition von Wissen werden ständig intensiviert. Alle Anstrengungen, Wissen aus externen Quellen in die Unternehmung zu integrieren bzw. selbst neues Wissen zu erzeugen, bleiben allein jedoch wenig sinnvoll. "It's an ongoing quest within an organization (...) to help discover the location, ownership, value and use of knowledge artifacts, to lern the roles and expertise of people, to identify constraints to the flow of knowledge, and to highlight opportunities to leverage existing knowledge." (Grey 1999)