Search (1568 results, page 1 of 79)

0.12958115 = product of:
  0.2591623 = sum of:
    0.2591623 = sum of:
      0.19513549 = weight(_text_:500 in 971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19513549 = score(doc=971,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.5403525 = fieldWeight in 971, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=971)
      0.064026825 = weight(_text_:22 in 971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.064026825 = score(doc=971,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 971, 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=971)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

115.000 Stichwörter mit mehr als 3.000 Sonderartikeln - Timeline mit ca. 10.000 Einträgen - Atlas mit 500 Landkarten und 192 Länderinfos - Ca. 80 Diashows zu Geographie, Kultur und Geschichte - Ca 10.000 Fotos und 39 videos, 40 Animationen aus Wissenschaft, Technik und Kulturgeschichte - Ca. 20.000 Links zu Web-Seiten

Source

CD-Info. 2002, H.1, S.22

0.12958115 = product of:
  0.2591623 = sum of:
    0.2591623 = sum of:
      0.19513549 = weight(_text_:500 in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19513549 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.5403525 = fieldWeight in 4049, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4049)
      0.064026825 = weight(_text_:22 in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.064026825 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4049, 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=4049)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Proceedings of the llth TREC-conference held in Gaithersburg, Maryland (USA), November 19-22, 2002. Aim of the conference was discussion an retrieval and related information-seeking tasks for large test collection. 93 research groups used different techniques, for information retrieval from the same large database. This procedure makes it possible to compare the results. The tasks are: Cross-language searching, filtering, interactive searching, searching for novelty, question answering, searching for video shots, and Web searching.

Series

NIST Special Publication; 500-251

0.12958115 = product of:
  0.2591623 = sum of:
    0.2591623 = sum of:
      0.19513549 = weight(_text_:500 in 5277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19513549 = score(doc=5277,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.5403525 = fieldWeight in 5277, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5277)
      0.064026825 = weight(_text_:22 in 5277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.064026825 = score(doc=5277,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5277, 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=5277)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 16:40:18

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.4, S.493-500

0.12674423 = product of:
  0.25348845 = sum of:
    0.25348845 = product of:
      0.5069769 = sum of:
        0.5069769 = weight(_text_:500 in 4814) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.5069769 = score(doc=4814,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            1.403877 = fieldWeight in 4814, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4814)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Seit dem vergangenen Jahr führt das HBZ Aleph 500 als neue Verbundsoftware ein. Historie und aktueller Stand (27.3.2000) werden dargestellt

Object

Aleph 500

0.12243791 = sum of:
  0.061458062 = product of:
    0.18437418 = sum of:
      0.18437418 = weight(_text_:objects in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.18437418 = score(doc=4926,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.31396845 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.58723795 = fieldWeight in 4926, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4926)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.060979843 = product of:
    0.12195969 = sum of:
      0.12195969 = weight(_text_:500 in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12195969 = score(doc=4926,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.33772033 = fieldWeight in 4926, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4926)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The structural, functional, and production views on learning objects influence metadata structure and vocabulary. The authors drew on these views and conducted a literature review and in-depth analysis of 14 learning objects and over 500 components in these learning objects to model the knowledge framework for a learning object ontology. The learning object ontology reported in this article consists of 8 top-level classes, 28 classes at the second level, and 34 at the third level. Except class Learning object, all other classes have the three properties of preferred term, related term, and synonym. To validate the ontology, we conducted a query log analysis that focused an discovering what terms users have used at both conceptual and word levels. The findings show that the main classes in the ontology are either conceptually or linguistically similar to the top terms in the query log data. The authors built an "Exercise Editor" as an informal experiment to test its adoption ability in authoring tools. The main contribution of this project is in the framework for the learning object domain and the methodology used to develop and validate an ontology.

0.120733924 = product of:
  0.24146785 = sum of:
    0.24146785 = product of:
      0.4829357 = sum of:
        0.4829357 = weight(_text_:500 in 6303) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4829357 = score(doc=6303,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            1.3373042 = fieldWeight in 6303, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6303)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

Aleph 500

0.120733924 = product of:
  0.24146785 = sum of:
    0.24146785 = product of:
      0.4829357 = sum of:
        0.4829357 = weight(_text_:500 in 1435) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4829357 = score(doc=1435,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            1.3373042 = fieldWeight in 1435, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1435)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

Aleph 500

0.11783104 = sum of:
  0.093820974 = product of:
    0.2814629 = sum of:
      0.2814629 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2814629 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.5008076 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = 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)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.024010058 = product of:
    0.048020117 = sum of:
      0.048020117 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048020117 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = 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

0.11338352 = product of:
  0.22676703 = sum of:
    0.22676703 = sum of:
      0.17074355 = weight(_text_:500 in 4955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17074355 = score(doc=4955,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.47280845 = fieldWeight in 4955, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4955)
      0.05602347 = weight(_text_:22 in 4955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05602347 = score(doc=4955,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4955, 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=4955)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Zum nunmehr fünften Mal veranstaltete die Bibliothek der Universität Bielefeld gemeinsam mit dem British Council Köln und der Buchhändler-Vereinigung GmbH Frankfurt an Main das internationale Spitzentreffen von Verlegern, Bibliothekaren und Agenturen. An den Vorträgen und Diskussionen nahmen in diesem Jahr weit über 500 Teilnehmer aus 22 Ländern teil. Mehr als 30 Aussteller präsentierten sich mit Ständen im vorraum der Stadthalle sowie mit Vorführungen und Firmenvorträgen. Ziel der Veranstalter war es auch dieses Mal, Verlegern, Händlern und Bibliothekaren ein Forum für nationale und internationale Kooperation bei der elektronischen Vermittlung von Fachinformation zu bieten

0.11338352 = product of:
  0.22676703 = sum of:
    0.22676703 = sum of:
      0.17074355 = weight(_text_:500 in 746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17074355 = score(doc=746,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.47280845 = fieldWeight in 746, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=746)
      0.05602347 = weight(_text_:22 in 746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05602347 = score(doc=746,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 746, 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=746)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

MARC records and online policy documents of selected libraries were reviewed to study the approaches taken by libraries worldwide to catalogue electronic journals. In general, libraries catalogue those electronic journals that are subscribed by them on priority basis. Most of them annotate the e-journal to the print record, some prefer to catalogue them separately, while the majority of the libraries adopt both approaches. While most of the libraries studied prefer full record, cataloguing e-journals separately with a brief record (at least containing MARC fields 245, 500, and 856) that identifies and locates the resource seems to be the best practice.

Date

22. 1.2007 20:46:57

0.101545274 = sum of:
  0.06953186 = product of:
    0.20859557 = sum of:
      0.20859557 = weight(_text_:objects in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20859557 = score(doc=767,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.31396845 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.6643839 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.032013413 = product of:
    0.064026825 = sum of:
      0.064026825 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.064026825 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 767, 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=767)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

RLG has used METS for a particular application, that is as a wrapper for structural metadata. When RLG cultural materials was launched, there was no single way to deal with "complex digital objects". METS provides a standard means of encoding metadata regarding the digital objects represented in RCM, and METS has now been fully integrated into the workflow for this service.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.65-68

0.097567745 = product of:
  0.19513549 = sum of:
    0.19513549 = product of:
      0.39027098 = sum of:
        0.39027098 = weight(_text_:500 in 3347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.39027098 = score(doc=3347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            1.080705 = fieldWeight in 3347, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

500 S

0.08927597 = product of:
  0.17855194 = sum of:
    0.17855194 = sum of:
      0.12195969 = weight(_text_:500 in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12195969 = score(doc=1467,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.33772033 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
      0.056592252 = weight(_text_:22 in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056592252 = score(doc=1467,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Inhalt: Section A: Number Building in Dewey Decimal Classification Chapters 1. Dewey Decimal Classification: An Introduction 2. Relative Index and its Utility 3. Table 1: Standard Subdivisions 4. Table 2: Areas 5. Table 3: Subdivisions of Individual Literature 6. Table 4: Aubdivisions of Individual Languages 7. Table 5: Racial, Ethnic National Groups 8. Table 6: Languages 9. Table 7: Persons 10. Number Building in Dewey Decimal Classification 11. Classification of Books According to Dewey Decimal classification 12. 000 Generalities 13. 100 Philosophy and Related Disciplines 14. 200 Religion 15. 300 Social Sciences 16. 400 Languages 17. 500 Pure Sciences 18. 600 Technology (Applied Sciences) 19. 700 The Arts 20. 800 Literature (Belles-Relaters) 21. 900 General Geography and History Exercises Solutions

Date

28. 2.2008 17:22:52

Object

DDC-22

0.08872059 = sum of:
  0.068712205 = product of:
    0.20613661 = sum of:
      0.20613661 = weight(_text_:objects in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20613661 = score(doc=2754,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.31396845 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.656552 = fieldWeight in 2754, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2754)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.020008383 = product of:
    0.040016767 = sum of:
      0.040016767 = weight(_text_:22 in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040016767 = score(doc=2754,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2754, 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=2754)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article presents an exploratory study of Blobgects, an experimental interface for an online museum catalog that enables social tagging and blogging activity around a set of cultural heritage objects held by a preeminent museum of anthropology and archaeology. This study attempts to understand not just whether social tagging and commenting about these objects is useful but rather whose tags and voices matter in presenting different expert perspectives around digital museum objects. Based on an empirical comparison between two different user groups (Canadian Inuit high-school students and museum studies students in the United States), we found that merely adding the ability to tag and comment to the museum's catalog does not sufficiently allow users to learn about or engage with the objects represented by catalog entries. Rather, the specialist language of the catalog provides too little contextualization for users to enter into the sort of dialog that proponents of Web 2.0 technologies promise. Overall, we propose a more nuanced application of Web 2.0 technologies within museums - one which provides a contextual basis that gives users a starting point for engagement and permits users to make sense of objects in relation to their own needs, uses, and understandings.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:52:32

0.08794 = product of:
  0.17588 = sum of:
    0.17588 = sum of:
      0.14786826 = weight(_text_:500 in 3353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14786826 = score(doc=3353,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.40946415 = fieldWeight in 3353, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3353)
      0.028011736 = weight(_text_:22 in 3353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028011736 = score(doc=3353,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3353, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3353)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Das in den letzten Jahren wiedererwachte Interesse an der klassifikatorischen Erschließung und Recherche hat sich allem Anschein nach noch nicht ausreichend bis zu den Herstellern integrierter Bibliothekssysteme herumgesprochen. Wie wäre es sonst zu erklären, dass im OPAC-Modul eines führenden Systems wie Aleph 500 so gut wie keine Features für klassifikationsbasierte Recherchen zu erblicken sind? Tatsächlich finden wir heute einen im Vergleich zum einstigen System Bibos kaum veränderten Zustand vor: Notationen eines oder mehrerer Klassifikationssysteme können in einer durch MAB dafür bestimmten Kategorie (700, nebst Indikatoren) katalogisiert und dann recherchiert bzw. angezeigt werden. Doch welcher Benutzer weiß schon, was diese Notationen im einzelnen bedeuten? Wer macht sich die Mühe, dies selbst herauszufinden, um dann danach zu recherchieren? Hier liegt im wesentlich dasselbe Problem vor, das schon dem systematischen Zettelkatalog anhaftete und ihn zu einem zwar mühevoll erstellten, aber wenig genutzten Rechercheinstrument machte, das nur dann (zwangsläufig) angenommen wurde, wenn ein verbaler Sachkatalog fehlte. Nun könnte eingewandt werden, dass im Vergleich zu früher unter Aleph 500 wenigstens das Aufblättern von Indizes möglich sei, sodass im OPAC ein Index für die vergebenen Notationen angeboten werden kann (bzw. mehrere solche Indizes bei Verwendung von mehr als nur einem Klassifikationssystem). Gewiss, doch was bringt dem Uneingeweihten das Aufblättern des Notationsindex - außer einer alphabetischen Liste von kryptischen Codes? Weiter könnte man einwenden, dass es im Aleph-500-OPAC die so genannten Suchdienste ("services") gibt, mithilfe derer von bestimmten Elementen einer Vollanzeige hypertextuell weiternavigiert werden kann. Richtig, doch damit kann man bloß wiederum den Index aufblättern oder alle anderen Werke anzeigen lassen, die dieselbe Notationen - also einen Code, dessen Bedeutung meist unbekannt ist - aufweisen. Wie populär mag dieses Feature beim Publikum wohl sein? Ein anderer Einwand wäre der Hinweis auf das inzwischen vom Hersteller angebotene Thesaurus-Modul, das vermutlich auch für Klassifikationssysteme eingesetzt werden könnte. Doch wie viele Bibliotheken unseres Verbundes waren bisher bereit, für dieses Modul, das man eigentlich als Bestandteil des Basissystems erwarten könnte, gesondert zu bezahlen? Schließlich mag man noch einwenden, dass es im Gegensatz zur Bibos-Zeit nun die Möglichkeit gibt, Systematiken und Klassifikationen als Normdateien zu implementieren und diese beim Retrieval für verbale Einstiege in die klassifikatorische Recherche oder zumindest für die Veranschaulichung der Klassenbenennungen in der Vollanzeige zu nutzen. Korrekt - dies ist möglich und wurde sogar einst für die MSC (Mathematics Subject Classification, auch bekannt als "AMS-Klassifikation") versucht. Dieses Projekt, das noch unter der Systemversion 11.5 begonnen wurde, geriet jedoch nach einiger Zeit ins Stocken und fand bedauerlicherweise nie seinen Weg in die folgende Version (14.2). Mag auch zu hoffen sein, dass es unter der neuen Version 16 wieder weitergeführt werden kann, so weist dieses Beispiel doch auf die grundsätzliche Problematik des Normdatei-Ansatzes (zusätzlicher Aufwand, Kontinuität) hin. Zudem lohnt sich die Implementierung einer eigenen Normdatei 4 wohl nur bei einem größeren bzw. komplexen Klassifikationssystem, wogegen man im Falle kleinerer Systematiken kaum daran denken würde.

Source

Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 58(2005) H.1, S.22-37

0.08537178 = product of:
  0.17074355 = sum of:
    0.17074355 = product of:
      0.3414871 = sum of:
        0.3414871 = weight(_text_:500 in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3414871 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            0.9456169 = fieldWeight in 4192, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4192)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

Aleph 500

0.082635224 = sum of:
  0.043020643 = product of:
    0.12906192 = sum of:
      0.12906192 = weight(_text_:objects in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12906192 = score(doc=2746,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.31396845 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 2746, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2746)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.039614577 = product of:
    0.07922915 = sum of:
      0.07922915 = weight(_text_:22 in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07922915 = score(doc=2746,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 2746, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2746)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Fundamental forms of information, as well as the term information itself, are defined and developed for the purposes of information science/studies. Concepts of natural and represented information (taking an unconventional sense of representation), encoded and embodied information, as well as experienced, enacted, expressed, embedded, recorded, and trace information are elaborated. The utility of these terms for the discipline is illustrated with examples from the study of information-seeking behavior and of information genres. Distinctions between the information and curatorial sciences with respect to their social (and informational) objects of study are briefly outlined.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:15:22

0.081813045 = product of:
  0.16362609 = sum of:
    0.16362609 = product of:
      0.32725218 = sum of:
        0.32725218 = weight(_text_:500 in 1639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.32725218 = score(doc=1639,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            0.90619874 = fieldWeight in 1639, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1639)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Das System ALEPH 500 (Version 14.2) bietet den Benutzern mit der Weiterentwicklung des "Multilingualen Thesaurus" verfeinerte Recherchefunktionen an, z.B. - Erhöhung der Treffsicherheit - Ausschluss von nicht zutreffenden Suchergebnissen - Aufspüren aller für die Suche relevanter Titel - Sprachunabhängige Suche - Beziehungen zwischen Begriffen. Im ALEPH 500-Web OPAC wird der Thesaurus in zwei Fenstern angezeigt. Links ist der Thesaurus-Baum mit Hierarchien und Begriffsbeziehungen abgebildet. Parallel dazu werden rechts die Informationen zum ausgewählten Deskriptor dargestellt. Von diesem Fenster aus sind weitere thesaurusbezogene Funktionen ausführbar. Der Thesaurus ist direkt mit dem Titelkatalog verknüpft. Somit kann sich der Benutzer vom gewählten Deskriptor ausgehend sofort die vorhandenen Titel im OPAC anzeigen lassen. Sowohl die Einzelrecherche über einen Deskriptor als auch die Top DownRecherche über einen Thesaurus-Baumzweig werden im Suchverlauf des Titelkatalogs mitgeführt. Die Recherche kann mit den bekannten Funktionen in ALEPH 500 erweitert, eingeschränkt, modifiziert oder als SDI-Profil abgelegt werden. Erfassung und Pflege des Thesaurusvokabublars erfolgen im Katalogisierungsmodul unter Beachtung allgemein gültiger Regeln mit Hilfe maßgeschneiderter Schablonen, die modifizierbar sind. Durch entsprechende Feldbelegungen können die vielfältigen Beziehungen eines Deskriptors abgebildet sowie Sprachvarianten hinterlegt werden. Hintergrundverknüpfungen sorgen dafür, dass sich Änderungen im Thesaurus sofort und direkt auf die bibliographischen Daten auswirken.

Object

Aleph 500

0.081813045 = product of:
  0.16362609 = sum of:
    0.16362609 = product of:
      0.32725218 = sum of:
        0.32725218 = weight(_text_:500 in 1640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.32725218 = score(doc=1640,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.36112627 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            0.90619874 = fieldWeight in 1640, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Das System ALEPH 500 (Version 14.2) bietet den Benutzern mit der Weiterentwicklung des "Multilingualen Thesaurus" verfeinerte Recherchefunktionen an, z.B. - Erhöhung der Treffsicherheit - Ausschluss von nicht zutreffenden Suchergebnissen - Aufspüren aller für die Suche relevanter Titel - Sprachunabhängige Suche - Beziehungen zwischen Begriffen. Im ALEPH 500-Web OPAC wird der Thesaurus in zwei Fenstern angezeigt. Links ist der Thesaurus-Baum mit Hierarchien und Begriffsbeziehungen abgebildet. Parallel dazu werden rechts die Informationen zum ausgewählten Deskriptor dargestellt. Von diesem Fenster aus sind weitere thesaurusbezogene Funktionen ausführbar. Der Thesaurus ist direkt mit dem Titelkatalog verknüpft. Somit kann sich der Benutzer vom gewählten Deskriptor ausgehend sofort die vorhandenen Titel im OPAC anzeigen lassen. Sowohl die Einzelrecherche über einen Deskriptor als auch die Top DownRecherche über einen Thesaurus-Baumzweig werden im Suchverlauf des Titelkatalogs mitgeführt. Die Recherche kann mit den bekannten Funktionen in ALEPH 500 erweitert, eingeschränkt, modifiziert oder als SDI-Profil abgelegt werden. Erfassung und Pflege des Thesaurusvokabublars erfolgen im Katalogisierungsmodul unter Beachtung allgemein gültiger Regeln mit Hilfe maßgeschneiderter Schablonen, die modifizierbar sind. Durch entsprechende Feldbelegungen können die vielfältigen Beziehungen eines Deskriptors abgebildet sowie Sprachvarianten hinterlegt werden. Hintergrundverknüpfungen sorgen dafür, dass sich Änderungen im Thesaurus sofort und direkt auf die bibliographischen Daten auswirken.

Object

Aleph 500

0.08117986 = sum of:
  0.04916645 = product of:
    0.14749934 = sum of:
      0.14749934 = weight(_text_:objects in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14749934 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.31396845 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.46979034 = fieldWeight in 2686, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2686)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.032013413 = product of:
    0.064026825 = sum of:
      0.064026825 = weight(_text_:22 in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.064026825 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2686, 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=2686)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Metadata (structured information about an object or collection of objects) is increasingly important to libraries, archives, and museums. And although librarians are familiar with a number of issues that apply to creating and using metadata (e.g., authority control, controlled vocabularies, etc.), the world of metadata is nonetheless different than library cataloging, with its own set of challenges. Therefore, whether you are new to these concepts or quite experienced with classic cataloging, this short (20 pages) introductory paper on metadata can be helpful

Date

10. 9.2004 10:22:40