Search (1752 results, page 1 of 88)

0.12724477 = product of:
  0.25448954 = sum of:
    0.25448954 = product of:
      0.5089791 = sum of:
        0.19860858 = weight(_text_:3a in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19860858 = score(doc=692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42406163 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 692, 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=692)
        0.31037048 = weight(_text_:2c in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.31037048 = score(doc=692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.5301151 = queryWeight, product of:
              10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.5854775 = fieldWeight in 692, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=692)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Piaget-%E2%80%99-s-Constructivism-%2C-Papert-%E2%80%99-s-%3A-What-%E2%80%99-s-Ackermann/89cbcc1e740a4591443ff4765a6ae8df0fdf5554. Darunter weitere Hinweise auf verwandte Beiträge. Auch unter: Learning Group Publication 5(2001) no.3, S.438.

0.095986664 = product of:
  0.19197333 = sum of:
    0.19197333 = sum of:
      0.15131202 = weight(_text_:m.p in 3762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15131202 = score(doc=3762,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3378906 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.44781366 = fieldWeight in 3762, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3762)
      0.0406613 = weight(_text_:22 in 3762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0406613 = score(doc=3762,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17515801 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3762, 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=3762)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

S. R. Ranganathan (1892-1972) has been called the father of the Indian Library movement. He developed the revolutionary Colon Classification (CC), which was published in seven editions from 1928 to 1987. The evolution of the classification through the editions is discussed. The unique features of the CC are described, including the idea, verbal, and notational planes. Tools for designing and evaluating a system are enshrined in his 55 canons, 22 principles, 13 postulates, and 10 devices. Semantic and syntactic relations are enshrined in his PMEST facet formula, fitted with rounds and levels of facets, and other principles, such as the famous wall-picture principle, for citation order of facets. Briefly explained are facet analysis and number building with its notational base of 74 digits. The entry concludes with a discussion of the extent of use of the CC, its enduring contribution to the science of classification, and its future.

0.09453483 = sum of:
  0.07759262 = product of:
    0.31037048 = sum of:
      0.31037048 = weight(_text_:2c in 193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.31037048 = score(doc=193,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.5301151 = queryWeight, product of:
            10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.5854775 = fieldWeight in 193, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=193)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01694221 = product of:
    0.03388442 = sum of:
      0.03388442 = weight(_text_:22 in 193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03388442 = score(doc=193,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17515801 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 193, 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=193)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-bib-info/frontdoor/index/index/searchtype/authorsearch/author/%22Hubrich%2C+Jessica%22/docId/703/start/0/rows/20

0.088265345 = product of:
  0.17653069 = sum of:
    0.17653069 = product of:
      0.35306138 = sum of:
        0.35306138 = weight(_text_:m.p in 3153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.35306138 = score(doc=3153,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3378906 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            1.0448985 = fieldWeight in 3153, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3153)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.08335008 = sum of:
  0.020303402 = product of:
    0.08121361 = sum of:
      0.08121361 = weight(_text_:authors in 3341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08121361 = score(doc=3341,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 3341, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3341)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.06304668 = product of:
    0.12609336 = sum of:
      0.12609336 = weight(_text_:m.p in 3341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12609336 = score(doc=3341,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3378906 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.37317806 = fieldWeight in 3341, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3341)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 36(2009) nos.2/3, S.180-181 (N.K. Swain): " ... The User's Guide will undoubtedly be of great help to practitioners and tutors, as each chapter includes a summary and exercises. The purpose suggested by the title is fulfilled, serving as a companion to the 19th edition of the Sears List. It is designed a a manual for beginners who will realize the importance of vocabulary control and subject analysis, and start to comprehend the structure and organization of the Sears List as well as the methods and techniques to locate, specify, and construct subject headings. The book, however, lacks a good number of examples for practice. The emphasis seems to have been put more on the theoretical than the practical aspects. Despite this criticism, I unreservedly value the authors' efforts. At the same time, I can't help but wonder if the book will have wide access as the place of publication, the cost and the availability will especially affect the users in developing countries. The User's Guide will be a valuable tool to technical services librarians, subject catalogers, students and teachers of library and information science. It is intended for college and university libraries in general, but more particularly for library schools. The authors produced a work of high quality that stands out in its category.

0.07991322 = sum of:
  0.059582572 = product of:
    0.23833029 = sum of:
      0.23833029 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.23833029 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.42406163 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02033065 = product of:
    0.0406613 = sum of:
      0.0406613 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0406613 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17515801 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.

Date

8. 1.2013 10:22:32

0.07740335 = sum of:
  0.014356673 = product of:
    0.05742669 = sum of:
      0.05742669 = weight(_text_:authors in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05742669 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 660, 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=660)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.06304668 = product of:
    0.12609336 = sum of:
      0.12609336 = weight(_text_:m.p in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12609336 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3378906 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.37317806 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A book number takes shelf arrangement of documents to a point where classification per se cannot. Class number alone is not able to uniquely individualise a document on the library shelves. The function of a book number starts from where that of the class number ends. An author number also brings together all the books by one author in one specific subject. A chronological book number will clearly portray the development of a subject over a given period. Book numbers are indispensable for a shelflist. The National Library (NL) of India at Kolkata has a collection of about 3 million documents. For organizing its contents it uses the DDC and the shelf arrangement is by Cutter's three figure author table. For Indian names it uses its home-made author table described here. Though the National Library table is designed especially for Indian names across all religions and regional cultures, vet its use outside the National Library has not been reported mostly due lack of marketing. Since 1961 the Indian cultural names have undergone many changes. The need is to revise and update the table to reflect the current culture and new authors across India.

0.07565601 = product of:
  0.15131202 = sum of:
    0.15131202 = product of:
      0.30262405 = sum of:
        0.30262405 = weight(_text_:m.p in 392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.30262405 = score(doc=392,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3378906 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.8956273 = fieldWeight in 392, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=392)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.07565601 = product of:
  0.15131202 = sum of:
    0.15131202 = product of:
      0.30262405 = sum of:
        0.30262405 = weight(_text_:m.p in 4586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.30262405 = score(doc=4586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3378906 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.8956273 = fieldWeight in 4586, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in. KO 29(2002) no.2, S.109 (M.P. Satija)

0.06304668 = product of:
  0.12609336 = sum of:
    0.12609336 = product of:
      0.25218672 = sum of:
        0.25218672 = weight(_text_:m.p in 6295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25218672 = score(doc=6295,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3378906 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.7463561 = fieldWeight in 6295, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6295)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 29(2002) nos.3/4, S.241-242 (M.P. Satija)

0.05853218 = sum of:
  0.034813084 = product of:
    0.13925233 = sum of:
      0.13925233 = weight(_text_:authors in 5760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13925233 = score(doc=5760,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.61068267 = fieldWeight in 5760, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5760)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.023719093 = product of:
    0.047438186 = sum of:
      0.047438186 = weight(_text_:22 in 5760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047438186 = score(doc=5760,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17515801 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5760, 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=5760)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Normalization rules are essential for interoperability between bibliographic systems. In the process of working with Name Authority Cooperative Program (NACO) authority files to match records with Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and developing the Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST) subject heading schema, the authors found inconsistencies in independently created NACO normalization implementations. Investigating these, the authors found ambiguities in the NACO standard that need resolution, and came to conclusions on how the procedure could be simplified with little impact on matching headings. To encourage others to test their software for compliance with the current rules, the authors have established a Web site that has test files and interactive services showing their current implementation.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.052143853 = sum of:
  0.02842476 = product of:
    0.11369904 = sum of:
      0.11369904 = weight(_text_:authors in 5267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11369904 = score(doc=5267,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.49862027 = fieldWeight in 5267, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5267)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.023719093 = product of:
    0.047438186 = sum of:
      0.047438186 = weight(_text_:22 in 5267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047438186 = score(doc=5267,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17515801 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5267, 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=5267)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The outputs of several information filtering (IF) systems can be combined to improve filtering performance. In this article the authors propose and explore a framework based on the so-called information structure (IS) model, which is frequently used in Information Economics, for combining the output of multiple IF systems according to each user's preferences (profile). The combination seeks to maximize the expected payoff to that user. The authors show analytically that the proposed framework increases users expected payoff from the combined filtering output for any user preferences. An experiment using the TREC-6 test collection confirms the theoretical findings.

Date

22. 7.2006 15:05:39

0.050010048 = sum of:
  0.01218204 = product of:
    0.04872816 = sum of:
      0.04872816 = weight(_text_:authors in 3740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04872816 = score(doc=3740,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.21369441 = fieldWeight in 3740, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3740)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.037828006 = product of:
    0.07565601 = sum of:
      0.07565601 = weight(_text_:m.p in 3740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07565601 = score(doc=3740,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3378906 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.22390683 = fieldWeight in 3740, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3740)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: HUNTER, E.: Do we still need classification; MALTBY, A. u. R. MARCELLA: Organizing knowledge: the need for system and unity; WARNER, J.: Can classification yield an evaluative principle for information retrieval?; NEWTON, R.: Information technoloyg and new directions; MacLENNAN, A.: Classification and the Internet; FOSKETT, A.C.: The future of facetted classification; MITCHELL, J.S.: The Dewey Decimal Classification in the twenty-first century; McILWAINE, I.C.: UDC in the twenty-first century; CHAN, L.M. u. T.L. HODGES: The Library of Congress Classification; SATIJA, M.P.: Sources of investigating the development of bibliographic classification

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of librarianship and information science 32(2000) no.4, S.218-219 (K.G. Bakewell); JASIST 53(2002) no.1, S.57 (B. Hjoerland): "Overall, the book is a disappointment, and points to problems in library and information science (LIS) as a research field. Classification is often regarded as one of the core subdisciplines of the field and as one of the core qualifications of library and information professionals. Nevertheless, no classification researchers (not even S.R. Ranganathan or Jack Mills-and none of the authors in the book under review) are visible in bibliometric maps of LIS (e.g., White & McCain, 1998)! One of the problems in this book is that it fails to define classification and to distinguish between different kinds of classification. By only considering systems like Dewey, LC and facetted classifications, it fail to consider, for example, bibliometric approaches in LIS as kinds of classifications and thus to consider the basic strength and weakness of different methods of classification. In computer science the term "ontologies" is very popular, and can be considered a modern development in classification research. Vickery (1997) made a useful introduction to this research, but it is not considered in the present book. I have a feeling that most of the authors in this book (and other "classification researchers" as well) are more or less implicitly working from the presumption that classification is about printed documents, and certainly not full-text electronic retrieval. I am, of course, aware that some of the chapters in the book do explicitly consider the Internet and electronic retrieval. However, if the electronic environment is to be considered, one needs to compare the relative strength and weakness of all kinds of subject access points (cf., Hjorland & Kyllesbech Nielsen, 2001). One has to consider what utility-if any-classification codes can have in relation to all other kinds of access points. If what is considered "classification" is not considered in relation to the electronic challenge, it is in my opinion reduced to something of minor importance. In Chapter 3, Julian Warner actually does take a step toward considering inherent weaknesses in current approaches to Information Retrieval (IR), and this chapter is, in my view, the best one. I think he is right in making the point that the IR tradition has built on the assumption that the system should provide a set of records that satisfy a query. What an IR system, in his view, should do is enlarge the users' capacity for informed choice between the representation of objects in the given universe of discourse. "Such an enhanced capacity for informed choice broadly corresponds to exploratory capability. It should also be regarded as analogous to a sense of cognitive control over, or ability to discriminate between, representations of objects" (p. 36). His basic idea is not much unfolded in the present chapter, but I think his line of research looks promising.

0.046195723 = product of:
  0.092391446 = sum of:
    0.092391446 = sum of:
      0.06304668 = weight(_text_:m.p in 129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06304668 = score(doc=129,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3378906 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.18658903 = fieldWeight in 129, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=129)
      0.02934477 = weight(_text_:22 in 129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02934477 = score(doc=129,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.17515801 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.16753313 = fieldWeight in 129, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=129)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 31(2004) no.2, S.112-114 (M.P. Satija) : "With nearly 130 years of eventful and checkered history, the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) is the oldest living yet thriving modern library classification. Having undergone 21 revisions, it is the most applied library classification structure all over the world. Apart from its use in libraries in more than 135 countries across six continents, many national and trade bibliographies use it for content organization. Furthermore, it is now making successful forays into the world of electronic documents and networked information. The print version of the 22nd edition was released in September 2003, two months later than the scheduled time of July 2003, and two months after the release of the electronic version, WebDewey. The period between print editions now seems settled to seven years as a matter of policy. As WebDewey, an the other hand, is updated an a quarterly basis, what really constitutes a new edition is problematic; edition is rolling, always in a flux without much fixity. The last half century, and more specifically the tenure of Benjamin A. Custer as editor (1956-1980; Editions 16-19), has been an era of structural changes in the DDC, backed by professional management and organizational planning. Custer was instrumental in not only resuscitating the system, but also in putting DDC back an the path of progress. His able successor, Dr. John P. Comaromi, edited the 20`h edition (1989) and ushered in a period of simplification and consolidation. Following the acquisition of Forest Press by OCLC in 1988, much more research has gone into making new editions of the DDC. The OCLC Office of Research has involved itself in classification research, especially in the harmonization of various knowledge classification systems and mapping of DDC numbers to subject headings, above all to make DDC capable of organizing electronic information of every sort. The acquisition of DDC by OCLC has also inaugurated an era of new products and services, along with organized marketing. DDC21 (1996) was a product of high IT, and the 22nd edition can safely be termed a child of network technology. It is indeed the first edition produced in the web environment. To stay abreast of current developments an knowledge practices, the editors relied an the Internet and electronic databases for new topics and terms. Editors and policy makes got constant feedback and suggestions via the Internet to add new features and to achieve accuracy and efficiency. In addition to the feedback and expert advice, this edition, as usual, is based an actual classification of three quarters of a million current books in the Decimal Classification Division of the Library of Congress since 1996.
Changes DDC22 is the second edition prepared by Joan S. Mitchell who took over as editor in 1993. It carries forward the policies and improvements started in DDC21, especially the onslaught an the Christian and western cultural blas in the schedules and tables. The plan for reducing Christian blas in 200 Religion, initiated in DDC21, has now been completed, with some additional provisions in 296 and 297. An outstanding change has been the abrogation of Table 7 Persons. The functions of Table 7 are now filled by using T1-08 and whatever notation is appropriate from 011-999. There are at least six places in the tables and 12 places in the schedules where the use of T7 was prescribed; what good the abolition of T7 has produced is not clear. In fact, it does make number building in some cases a bit circuitous, especially while using Table 3C. It has also resulted in the reuse of many DDC 21 numbers with new meanings. However, some numbers remain the same e.g., Social customs of artists 390.47 (both in DDC21 and DDC22). A few numbers have also become shorter in length. In compliance with the recommendations of D'Elia's survey, all works relating to directories of travel facilities such as hotels, lodges, Motels, inns, have been shifted to 910.46 and to 913/919 whereas 647.94 continues to be in place for general information about hotels. A common practice in previous editions, that is full class or extensive revisions (phoenix schedules), appear to have been discontinued in the preparation of DDC22. But minor changes are numerous. There are more than one thousand relocations and discontiuations of class numbers. Some 40 numbers have been reused. ... However, all these changes are not those projected as slated changes for DDC22 in the DDC21 (1996), namely in 520 Astronomy, 355-359 Military science, 636-639 Animal husbandry and 690 Buildings. Obviously the switch over to the DDC 22 will put less strain an libraries. There has been considerable improvement in the manual, now shifted to volume 1 of the print edition (pp. 1-182). Notes in the manual have been shortened by removing redundant information and by dividing them into smaller sections. Some information from the manual has been transferred to the schedules and tables, in the form of notes. The manual is now clearer and easier to read. Flow Charts, built-in numbers, and see also references should help classifiers achieve greater consistency. The relative index has been beefed up. With its 928 pages, it is 333 pages longer than the previous one, including new built-in numbers and many additional terms. The entry vocabulary is wide-based and current. DDC 22, the first edition of this millennium, has kept pace with the fast changing information environment to map and organize it squarely. To quote our friends at OCLC: knowledge is a big world, and they have organized it."

Object

DDC-22

0.04597989 = sum of:
  0.017228007 = product of:
    0.06891203 = sum of:
      0.06891203 = weight(_text_:authors in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06891203 = score(doc=101,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.028751884 = product of:
    0.057503767 = sum of:
      0.057503767 = weight(_text_:22 in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057503767 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17515801 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 101, 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=101)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Libraries pay considerable attention to the creation, preservation, and transformation of descriptive metadata in both MARC and non-MARC formats. Little evidence suggests that they devote as much time, energy, and financial resources to the ongoing maintenance of non-MARC metadata, especially with regard to updating and editing existing descriptive content, as they do to maintenance of such information in the MARC-based online public access catalog. In this paper, the authors introduce a model, derived loosely from J. A. Zachman's framework for information systems architecture, with which libraries can identify and inventory components of catalog or metadata maintenance and plan interdepartmental, even interinstitutional, workflows. The model draws on the notion that the expertise and skills that have long been the hallmark for the maintenance of libraries' catalog data can and should be parlayed towards metadata maintenance in a broader set of information delivery systems.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22
19. 6.2010 19:22:28

0.04469473 = sum of:
  0.02436408 = product of:
    0.09745632 = sum of:
      0.09745632 = weight(_text_:authors in 5293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09745632 = score(doc=5293,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 5293, 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=5293)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02033065 = product of:
    0.0406613 = sum of:
      0.0406613 = weight(_text_:22 in 5293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0406613 = score(doc=5293,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17515801 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5293, 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=5293)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The authors describe a set of best practices that were developed to assist in the design of search user interfaces. Search user interfaces represent a challenging design domain because novices who have no desire to learn the mechanics of search engine architecture or algorithms often use them. These can lead to frustration and task failure when it is not addressed by the user interface. The best practices are organized into five domains: the corpus, search algorithms, user and task context, the search interface, and mobility. In each section the authors present an introduction to the design challenges related to the domain and a set of best practices for creating a user interface that facilitates effective use by a broad population of users and tasks.

Date

22. 7.2006 17:38:51

0.04469473 = sum of:
  0.02436408 = product of:
    0.09745632 = sum of:
      0.09745632 = weight(_text_:authors in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09745632 = score(doc=2751,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 2751, 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=2751)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02033065 = product of:
    0.0406613 = sum of:
      0.0406613 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0406613 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17515801 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2751, 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=2751)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Why authors choose some references in preference to others is a question that is still not wholly answered despite its being of interest to scientists. The relevance of references is twofold: They are a mechanism for tracing the evolution of science, and because they enhance the image of the cited authors, citations are a widely known and used indicator of scientific endeavor. Following an extensive review of the literature, we selected all papers that seek to answer the central question and demonstrate that the existing theories are not sufficient: Neither citation nor indicator theory provides a complete and convincing answer. Some perspectives in this arena remain, which are isolated from the core literature. The purpose of this article is to offer a fresh perspective on a 30-year-old problem by extending the context of the discussion. We suggest reviving the discussion about citation theories with a new perspective, that of the readers, by layers or phases, in the final choice of references, allowing for a new classification in which any paper, to date, could be included.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:05:07

0.044132672 = product of:
  0.088265345 = sum of:
    0.088265345 = product of:
      0.17653069 = sum of:
        0.17653069 = weight(_text_:m.p in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17653069 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3378906 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.52244925 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.044132672 = product of:
  0.088265345 = sum of:
    0.088265345 = product of:
      0.17653069 = sum of:
        0.17653069 = weight(_text_:m.p in 6112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17653069 = score(doc=6112,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3378906 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.52244925 = fieldWeight in 6112, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6112)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 27(2000) no.4, S.241.243 (M.P. Satija)

0.044132672 = product of:
  0.088265345 = sum of:
    0.088265345 = product of:
      0.17653069 = sum of:
        0.17653069 = weight(_text_:m.p in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17653069 = score(doc=1155,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3378906 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.52244925 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)