Search (1502 results, page 1 of 76)

0.18309666 = sum of:
  0.042530727 = product of:
    0.12759218 = sum of:
      0.12759218 = weight(_text_:objects in 2541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12759218 = score(doc=2541,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.310393 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 2541, 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=2541)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14056593 = product of:
    0.28113186 = sum of:
      0.28113186 = weight(_text_:mass in 2541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.28113186 = score(doc=2541,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.38743374 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.7256257 = fieldWeight in 2541, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2541)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the OPAC integration in the University of Michigan's local implementation of materials digitized in the partnership with Google. Design/methodology/approach - The paper provides a discussion of different strategies used in integrating metadata with digital resources and presenting the digital objects to the user in the OPAC. Findings - The paper finds that methods that had served in smaller digitization projects require more automation and error reduction processes in an undertaking of this scale. Increased integration with the OPAC is one approach. Originality/value - Michigan is the first of the Google partners to mount their materials themselves and others involved in mass digitization may be interested in the experience.

0.14524329 = product of:
  0.29048657 = sum of:
    0.29048657 = sum of:
      0.22718887 = weight(_text_:mass in 208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.22718887 = score(doc=208,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38743374 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.58639413 = fieldWeight in 208, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=208)
      0.0632977 = weight(_text_:22 in 208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0632977 = score(doc=208,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 208, 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=208)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Libraries must learn to accommodate themselves to Google, and complement its mass digitization efforts with niche digitization of our own. We need to plan for what our activities and services will look like when our primary activity is no longer the storage and circulation of widely-available print materials, and once the printed book is no longer the only major vehicle for scholarly communication.

Pages

S.5-22

0.12708786 = product of:
  0.25417572 = sum of:
    0.25417572 = sum of:
      0.19879025 = weight(_text_:mass in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19879025 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38743374 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.51309484 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
      0.05538548 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05538548 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 114, 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=114)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper explores cataloging in the Age of Google. It considers what the technologies now being adopted mean for cataloging in the future. The author begins by exploring how digital-era students do research-they find using Google easier than using libraries. Mass digitization projects now are bringing into question the role that library cataloging has traditionally performed. The author asks readers to consider if the detailed attention librarians have been paying to descriptive cataloging can still be justified, and if cost-effective means for access should be considered.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.12018477 = product of:
  0.24036954 = sum of:
    0.24036954 = sum of:
      0.20080848 = weight(_text_:mass in 510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20080848 = score(doc=510,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.38743374 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.51830405 = fieldWeight in 510, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=510)
      0.03956106 = weight(_text_:22 in 510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03956106 = score(doc=510,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 510, 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=510)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

12. 2.2022 17:28:22

LCSH

Mass media / Psychological aspects

Subject

Mass media / Psychological aspects

0.11648918 = sum of:
  0.092752546 = product of:
    0.27825764 = sum of:
      0.27825764 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.27825764 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.49510446 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = 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)
  0.023736635 = product of:
    0.04747327 = sum of:
      0.04747327 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04747327 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = 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

0.107344076 = sum of:
  0.021265363 = product of:
    0.06379609 = sum of:
      0.06379609 = weight(_text_:objects in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06379609 = score(doc=1172,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.310393 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.20553327 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.08607871 = product of:
    0.17215742 = sum of:
      0.17215742 = weight(_text_:mass in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17215742 = score(doc=1172,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.38743374 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.4443532 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The impetus for this essay is the library community's uncertainty regarding the present and future direction of the library catalog in the era of Google and mass digitization projects. The uncertainty is evident at the highest levels. Deanna Marcum, Associate Librarian for Library Services at the Library of Congress (LC), is struck by undergraduate students who favor digital resources over the online library catalog because such resources are available at anytime and from anywhere (Marcum, 2006). She suggests that "the detailed attention that we have been paying to descriptive cataloging may no longer be justified ... retooled catalogers could give more time to authority control, subject analysis, [and] resource identification and evaluation" (Marcum, 2006, 8). In an abrupt about-face, LC terminated series added entries in cataloging records, one of the few subject-rich fields in such records (Cataloging Policy and Support Office, 2006). Mann (2006b) and Schniderman (2006) cite evidence of LC's prevailing viewpoint in favor of simplifying cataloging at the expense of subject cataloging. LC commissioned Karen Calhoun (2006) to prepare a report on "revitalizing" the online library catalog. Calhoun's directive is clear: divert resources from cataloging mass-produced formats (e.g., books) to cataloging the unique primary sources (e.g., archives, special collections, teaching objects, research by-products). She sums up her rationale for such a directive, "The existing local catalog's market position has eroded to the point where there is real concern for its ability to weather the competition for information seekers' attention" (p. 10). At the University of California Libraries (2005), a task force's recommendations parallel those in Calhoun report especially regarding the elimination of subject headings in favor of automatically generated metadata. Contemplating these events prompted me to revisit the glorious past of the online library catalog. For a decade and a half beginning in the early 1980s, the online library catalog was the jewel in the crown when people eagerly queued at its terminals to find information written by the world's experts. I despair how eagerly people now embrace Google because of the suspect provenance of the information Google retrieves. Long ago, we could have added more value to the online library catalog but the only thing we changed was the catalog's medium. Our failure to act back then cost the online catalog the crown. Now that the era of mass digitization has begun, we have a second chance at redesigning the online library catalog, getting it right, coaxing back old users, and attracting new ones. Let's revisit the past, reconsidering missed opportunities, reassessing their merits, combining them with new directions, making bold decisions and acting decisively on them.

0.100388885 = sum of:
  0.06874004 = product of:
    0.2062201 = sum of:
      0.2062201 = weight(_text_:objects in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2062201 = score(doc=767,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.310393 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = 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)
  0.03164885 = product of:
    0.0632977 = sum of:
      0.0632977 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0632977 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = 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

0.090777054 = product of:
  0.18155411 = sum of:
    0.18155411 = sum of:
      0.14199305 = weight(_text_:mass in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14199305 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38743374 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.36649632 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)
      0.03956106 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03956106 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article describes the latest development of a generic approach to detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. The work makes substantial theoretical and methodological contributions to progressive knowledge domain visualization. A specialty is conceptualized and visualized as a time-variant duality between two fundamental concepts in information science: research fronts and intellectual bases. A research front is defined as an emergent and transient grouping of concepts and underlying research issues. The intellectual base of a research front is its citation and co-citation footprint in scientific literature - an evolving network of scientific publications cited by research-front concepts. Kleinberg's (2002) burst-detection algorithm is adapted to identify emergent research-front concepts. Freeman's (1979) betweenness centrality metric is used to highlight potential pivotal points of paradigm shift over time. Two complementary visualization views are designed and implemented: cluster views and time-zone views. The contributions of the approach are that (a) the nature of an intellectual base is algorithmically and temporally identified by emergent research-front terms, (b) the value of a co-citation cluster is explicitly interpreted in terms of research-front concepts, and (c) visually prominent and algorithmically detected pivotal points substantially reduce the complexity of a visualized network. The modeling and visualization process is implemented in CiteSpace II, a Java application, and applied to the analysis of two research fields: mass extinction (1981-2004) and terrorism (1990-2003). Prominent trends and pivotal points in visualized networks were verified in collaboration with domain experts, who are the authors of pivotal-point articles. Practical implications of the work are discussed. A number of challenges and opportunities for future studies are identified.

Date

22. 7.2006 16:11:05

0.087710254 = sum of:
  0.06792972 = product of:
    0.20378916 = sum of:
      0.20378916 = weight(_text_:objects in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20378916 = score(doc=2754,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.310393 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = 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)
  0.01978053 = product of:
    0.03956106 = sum of:
      0.03956106 = weight(_text_:22 in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03956106 = score(doc=2754,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = 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

0.08169418 = sum of:
  0.042530727 = product of:
    0.12759218 = sum of:
      0.12759218 = weight(_text_:objects in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12759218 = score(doc=2746,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.310393 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = 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)
  0.03916345 = product of:
    0.0783269 = sum of:
      0.0783269 = weight(_text_:22 in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0783269 = score(doc=2746,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = 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

0.08025539 = sum of:
  0.048606545 = product of:
    0.14581963 = sum of:
      0.14581963 = weight(_text_:objects in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14581963 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.310393 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = 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)
  0.03164885 = product of:
    0.0632977 = sum of:
      0.0632977 = weight(_text_:22 in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0632977 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = 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

0.07905282 = sum of:
  0.03645491 = product of:
    0.109364726 = sum of:
      0.109364726 = weight(_text_:objects in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.109364726 = score(doc=1978,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.310393 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.042597916 = product of:
    0.08519583 = sum of:
      0.08519583 = weight(_text_:mass in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08519583 = score(doc=1978,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38743374 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.2198978 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This chapter examines the nature of semantic relations and their main applications in information science. The nature and types of semantic relations are discussed from the perspectives of linguistics and psychology. An overview of the semantic relations used in knowledge structures such as thesauri and ontologies is provided, as well as the main techniques used in the automatic extraction of semantic relations from text. The chapter then reviews the use of semantic relations in information extraction, information retrieval, question-answering, and automatic text summarization applications. Concepts and relations are the foundation of knowledge and thought. When we look at the world, we perceive not a mass of colors but objects to which we automatically assign category labels. Our perceptual system automatically segments the world into concepts and categories. Concepts are the building blocks of knowledge; relations act as the cement that links concepts into knowledge structures. We spend much of our lives identifying regular associations and relations between objects, events, and processes so that the world has an understandable structure and predictability. Our lives and work depend on the accuracy and richness of this knowledge structure and its web of relations. Relations are needed for reasoning and inferencing. Chaffin and Herrmann (1988b, p. 290) noted that "relations between ideas have long been viewed as basic to thought, language, comprehension, and memory." Aristotle's Metaphysics (Aristotle, 1961; McKeon, expounded on several types of relations. The majority of the 30 entries in a section of the Metaphysics known today as the Philosophical Lexicon referred to relations and attributes, including cause, part-whole, same and opposite, quality (i.e., attribute) and kind-of, and defined different types of each relation. Hume (1955) pointed out that there is a connection between successive ideas in our minds, even in our dreams, and that the introduction of an idea in our mind automatically recalls an associated idea. He argued that all the objects of human reasoning are divided into relations of ideas and matters of fact and that factual reasoning is founded on the cause-effect relation. His Treatise of Human Nature identified seven kinds of relations: resemblance, identity, relations of time and place, proportion in quantity or number, degrees in quality, contrariety, and causation. Mill (1974, pp. 989-1004) discoursed on several types of relations, claiming that all things are either feelings, substances, or attributes, and that attributes can be a quality (which belongs to one object) or a relation to other objects.

0.07529166 = sum of:
  0.05155503 = product of:
    0.15466508 = sum of:
      0.15466508 = weight(_text_:objects in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15466508 = score(doc=4752,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.310393 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.49828792 = fieldWeight in 4752, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4752)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.023736635 = product of:
    0.04747327 = sum of:
      0.04747327 = weight(_text_:22 in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04747327 = score(doc=4752,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4752, 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=4752)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As educational technology becomes pervasive, demand will grow for library content to be incorporated into courseware. Among the barriers impeding interoperability between libraries and educational tools is the difference in specifications commonly used for the exchange of digital objects and metadata. Among libraries, Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) is a new but increasingly popular standard; the IMS content-package (IMS-CP) plays a parallel role in educational technology. This article describes how METS-encoded library content can be converted into digital objects for IMS-compliant systems through an XSLT-based crosswalk. The conceptual models behind METS and IMS-CP are compared, the design and limitations of an XSLT-based translation are described, and the crosswalks are related to other techniques to enhance interoperability.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.69-81

0.07211086 = product of:
  0.14422172 = sum of:
    0.14422172 = sum of:
      0.12048509 = weight(_text_:mass in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12048509 = score(doc=1184,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.38743374 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.31098244 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
      0.023736635 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023736635 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Google's December 2004 announcement of its intention to collaborate with five major research libraries - Harvard University, the University of Michigan, Stanford University, the University of Oxford, and the New York Public Library - to digitize and surface their print book collections in the Google searching universe has, predictably, stirred conflicting opinion, with some viewing the project as a welcome opportunity to enhance the visibility of library collections in new environments, and others wary of Google's prospective role as gateway to these collections. The project has been vigorously debated on discussion lists and blogs, with the participating libraries commonly referred to as "the Google 5". One point most observers seem to concede is that the questions raised by this initiative are both timely and significant. The Google Print Library Project (GPLP) has galvanized a long overdue, multi-faceted discussion about library print book collections. The print book is core to library identity and practice, but in an era of zero-sum budgeting, it is almost inevitable that print book budgets will decline as budgets for serials, digital resources, and other materials expand. As libraries re-allocate resources to accommodate changing patterns of user needs, print book budgets may be adversely impacted. Of course, the degree of impact will depend on a library's perceived mission. A public library may expect books to justify their shelf-space, with de-accession the consequence of minimal use. A national library, on the other hand, has a responsibility to the scholarly and cultural record and may seek to collect comprehensively within particular areas, with the attendant obligation to secure the long-term retention of its print book collections. The combination of limited budgets, changing user needs, and differences in library collection strategies underscores the need to think about a collective, or system-wide, print book collection - in particular, how can an inter-institutional system be organized to achieve goals that would be difficult, and/or prohibitively expensive, for any one library to undertake individually [4]? Mass digitization programs like GPLP cast new light on these and other issues surrounding the future of library print book collections, but at this early stage, it is light that illuminates only dimly. It will be some time before GPLP's implications for libraries and library print book collections can be fully appreciated and evaluated. But the strong interest and lively debate generated by this initiative suggest that some preliminary analysis - premature though it may be - would be useful, if only to undertake a rough mapping of the terrain over which GPLP potentially will extend. At the least, some early perspective helps shape interesting questions for the future, when the boundaries of GPLP become settled, workflows for producing and managing the digitized materials become systematized, and usage patterns within the GPLP framework begin to emerge.
This article offers some perspectives on GPLP in light of what is known about library print book collections in general, and those of the Google 5 in particular, from information in OCLC's WorldCat bibliographic database and holdings file. Questions addressed include: * Coverage: What proportion of the system-wide print book collection will GPLP potentially cover? What is the degree of holdings overlap across the print book collections of the five participating libraries? * Language: What is the distribution of languages associated with the print books held by the GPLP libraries? Which languages are predominant? * Copyright: What proportion of the GPLP libraries' print book holdings are out of copyright? * Works: How many distinct works are represented in the holdings of the GPLP libraries? How does a focus on works impact coverage and holdings overlap? * Convergence: What are the effects on coverage of using a different set of five libraries? What are the effects of adding the holdings of additional libraries to those of the GPLP libraries, and how do these effects vary by library type? These questions certainly do not exhaust the analytical possibilities presented by GPLP. More in-depth analysis might look at Google 5 coverage in particular subject areas; it also would be interesting to see how many books covered by the GPLP have already been digitized in other contexts. However, these questions are left to future studies. The purpose here is to explore a few basic questions raised by GPLP, and in doing so, provide an empirical context for the debate that is sure to continue for some time to come. A secondary objective is to lay some groundwork for a general set of questions that could be used to explore the implications of any mass digitization initiative. A suggested list of questions is provided in the conclusion of the article.

Date

26.12.2011 14:08:22

0.07211086 = product of:
  0.14422172 = sum of:
    0.14422172 = sum of:
      0.12048509 = weight(_text_:mass in 1833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12048509 = score(doc=1833,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.38743374 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.31098244 = fieldWeight in 1833, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1833)
      0.023736635 = weight(_text_:22 in 1833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023736635 = score(doc=1833,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 1833, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1833)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

11. 5.2008 19:49:22

LCSH

Mass media / Archival resources / Congresses

Subject

Mass media / Archival resources / Congresses

0.070223466 = sum of:
  0.042530727 = product of:
    0.12759218 = sum of:
      0.12759218 = weight(_text_:objects in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12759218 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.310393 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 2843, 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=2843)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.02769274 = product of:
    0.05538548 = sum of:
      0.05538548 = weight(_text_:22 in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05538548 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2843, 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=2843)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The MIT libraries were called upon to recommend a metadata scheme for the resources contained in MIT's OpenCourseWare (OCW) project. The resources in OCW needed descriptive, structural, and technical metadata. The SCORM standard, which uses IEEE Learning Object Metadata for its descriptive standard, was selected for its focus on educational objects. However, it was clear that the Libraries would need to recommend how the standard would be applied and adapted to accommodate needs that were not addressed in the standard's specifications. The newly formed MIT Libraries Metadata Unit adapted established practices from AACR2 and MARC traditions when facing situations in which there were no precedents to follow.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.138-143

0.06868845 = sum of:
  0.04383967 = product of:
    0.131519 = sum of:
      0.131519 = weight(_text_:objects in 3571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.131519 = score(doc=3571,freq=34.0), product of:
          0.310393 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.42371768 = fieldWeight in 3571, product of:
            5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
              34.0 = termFreq=34.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.013671875 = fieldNorm(doc=3571)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.024848782 = product of:
    0.049697563 = sum of:
      0.049697563 = weight(_text_:mass in 3571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049697563 = score(doc=3571,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38743374 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.12827371 = fieldWeight in 3571, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.013671875 = fieldNorm(doc=3571)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Certainty, like unity, can be claimed in principle-not in practice." Now, you're talking about certainty in principle. I do too. I recognize its importance as a positive and valuable guiding myth. I also talk about certainty in practice. The whole mathematical community recognizes its value and is engaged in seeking it. Immediately following in my book: "Myth 4 is objectivity. This myth is more plausible than the first three. Yes! There's amazing consensus in mathematics as to what's correct or accepted." On page 176 I elaborate: "Mathematical truths are objective, in the sense that they're accepted by all qualified persons, regardless of race, age, gender, political or religious belief. What's correct in Seoul is correct in Winnipeg. This 'invariance' of mathematics is its very essence." On page 181: "Our conviction when we work with mathematics that we're working with something real isn't a mass delusion. To each of us, mathematics is an external reality. Working with it demands we submit to its objective character. It's what it is, not what we want it to be." So we agree. Mathematical truth is objective! Then how can a sophisticated critic like you think I don't recognize the objectivity of mathematical truth? The question, of course, is what we mean by "objective." To you, "objective" means "out there." To me, "objective" means "agreed upon by all qualified people who check it out." But I'm unwilling to leave the matter at that. Like many other people, I think objectivity is to be understood by reference to objects, things that really have the properties we discover. Mathematical objects are simply the things mathematical statements are about. Numbers, functions, operators, spaces, transformations, mappings, etc. What sort of objects are they? They're not physical objects. Aristotle already explained that the triangles and circles of Greek geometry are not physical entities. The first few natural numbers are abstracted from physical sets. But the really big natural numbers are not found in nature. The set of all natural numbers, N is an infinite set, not found in nature. We made it up. The most important property of N is mathematical induction-an axiom said to be intuitively obvious. Intuition is "in there," not "out there." Certainly the use and interest of the abstract mathematical numbers come from their close connection with physical numbers. But meaning and existence can't be untangled without acknowledging the distinction between physical numbers and mathematical numbers. We also study infinitely differentiable infinite-dimensional manifolds of infinite connectivity. These are not found in the physical world. Not to mention the "big" sets of contemporary set-theorists.
Then, if not in physical reality, could mathematical objects exist "in the mind"? Gottlob Frege famously derided this idea. If I add up a row of figures and get a wrong answer, it's wrong even if I think it's right. The theorems of Euclid remain after Euclid's mind is buried with Euclid. So where are the objects about which mathematics is objective? The answer was given by the French philosopher/ sociologist Emile Durkheim, and expounded by the U.S. anthropologist Leslie White [8]. But social scientists aren't cited by philosophers, nor by many mathematicians. (Ray Wilder was the exception.) The universe contains things other than mental objects and physical objects. There are also institutions, laws, common understandings, etc., etc., etc. -social-historical objects. (I say just "social" for short.) We cannot think of war or money or the Supreme Court or the U.S. Constitution or the doctrine of the virgin birth as either physical or mental objects. They have to be understood and dealt with on a different level-the social level. Social entities are real. If you doubt it, stop paying your bills-stop obeying the speed limit. And social entities have real properties. That's how we manage to negotiate daily life. Social scientists don't say "object." They say "process" and "artifact" and "institution." Social processes and artifacts and institutions are grounded in physical and mental objects-mainly the brains and the thoughts of people. But they must be understood on a different level from the mental or physical. In order to decide where mathematics belongs, I must consider all three-the physical, mental, and social. I need a word that can apply to all three-physical, mental, and social worlds. "Object" seems suitable. The common connotation of "object" as only a physical entity has to be set aside. Any definite entity-social, mental, or physical-whose existence is manifested by real-life experience can be called an object. Mental objects (thoughts, plans, intentions, emotions, etc.) are grounded on a physical basis - the nervous system, or the brain. But we cannot deal with our thoughts or the thoughts of each other as physical objects-electric currents in the brain. That is why there is a "mindbody problem." And social-historical objects are on still a different level from either the mental or the physical. Now, Martin, if you recognize the existence of social objects, you ought to ask, "Since mathematical objects are neither physical nor mental, are they social?" My answer is, "Yes, that is what they are." That's controversial. It's "maverick." That doesn't mean you can dispose of it by distorting or denouncing it. That mathematics is in the minds of people, including mathematicians, is not a novelty. Everyone knows that. It's in minds connected by frequent communication, in minds that follow the heritage of past mathematicians. My claim is this: to understand what mathematics is, we need not go beyond this recognized social existence. That's where it's at. Locating mathematics in the world of social entities DOESN'T make it unreal.
Or imaginary. Or fuzzy. Or subjective. Or relativistic. Or postmodern. Saying it's really "out there" is a reach for a superhuman certainty that is not attained by any human activity. A famous mathematician said to me, "I am willing to leave that question to the philosophers." Which philosophers? Professional philosophers who are not mathematicians?! To obtain answers meaningful to us, I'm afraid we'll have to get to work ourselves. Martin, 18 years ago you talked about "dinosaurs in a clearing," in order to prove that 2 + 3 = 5 is a mathematical truth independent of human consciousness. I answered that claim in my recent book. In your review of it in the L.A. Times, you ignored my answer. In your letter to The Intelligencer, you ignore it again. You just repeat your dinosaur anecdote. I will explain again. Words like '2' '3', and '5' have two usages. Most basically, as adjectives - "two eyes," "three blind mice," "five fingers." We call them "physical numbers," though they are also used for mental and social entities. It's a physical fact that two mama bears and three papa bears together make five great big bears. To put it in more academic terms, there are discrete structures in nature, and they can occur in sets that have definite numerosity. In mathematics, on the other hand, we deal with "abstract structures," not bears or fingers or dinosaurs. In mathematics, the words '2', '3', and '5' can be nouns, denoting certain abstract objects, elements of N. As I explain above, N and its main property are not found in physical nature. Counting dinosaurs uses physical numbers, adjectives, not the abstract numbers we study in mathematics. The physical numbers apply even if we don't know about them. They are part of physical reality, not human culture. Mathematical numbers, on the other hand, are a human creation, part of our social-historical heritage. They were created, we presume, from the physical adjective numbers, by abstraction and generalization. From time to time you call me a "cultural relativist." Cultural relativists say, "Western music (for instance) is not better or worse than New Guinea music. It's different, that's all." When I say mathematics is part of human culture, there's no relativism involved. More mysterious is your conclusion: "To imagine that these awesomely complicated and beautiful patterns are not 'out there' independent of you and me, but somehow cobbled by our minds in the way we write poetry and compose music, is surely the ultimate in hubris. 'Glory to Man in the highest,' sang Swinburne, 'for Man is the master of things.'

0.06733358 = sum of:
  0.027171887 = product of:
    0.08151566 = sum of:
      0.08151566 = weight(_text_:objects in 469) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08151566 = score(doc=469,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.310393 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.2626208 = fieldWeight in 469, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=469)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.040161695 = product of:
    0.08032339 = sum of:
      0.08032339 = weight(_text_:mass in 469) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08032339 = score(doc=469,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.38743374 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.20732163 = fieldWeight in 469, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=469)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In Media Ecologies, Matthew Fuller asks what happens when media systems interact. Complex objects such as media systems - understood here as processes, or elements in a composition as much as "things" - have become informational as much as physical, but without losing any of their fundamental materiality. Fuller looks at this multiplicitous materiality - how it can be sensed, made use of, and how it makes other possibilities tangible. He investigates the ways the different qualities in media systems can be said to mix and interrelate, and, as he writes, "to produce patterns, dangers, and potentials." Fuller draws on texts by Felix Guattari (and his "serial collaborator" Gilles Deleuze) as well as writings by Friedrich Nietzsche, Marshall McLuhan, Donna Haraway, Friedrich Kittler, and others, to define and extend the idea of "media ecology." Arguing that the only way to find out about what happens when media systems interact is to carry out such interactions, Fuller traces a series of media ecologies - "taking every path in a labyrinth simultaneously," as he describes one chapter. He looks at contemporary London-based pirate radio and its interweaving of high- and low-tech media systems; the "medial will to power" illustrated by "the camera that ate itself"; how, as seen in a range of compelling interpretations of new media works, the capacities and behaviors of media objects are affected when they are in "abnormal" relationships with other objects; and each step in a sequence of Web pages, "Cctv - world wide watch," that encourages viewers to report crimes seen via webcams. Contributing to debates around standardisation, cultural evolution, cybernetic culture, and surveillance, and inventing a politically challenging aesthetic that links them, Media Ecologies, with its various narrative speeds, scales, frames of references, and voices, does not offer the academically traditional unifying framework; rather, Fuller says, it proposes to capture "an explosion of activity and ideas to which it hopes to add an echo."

Footnote

Exploring John Hilliard's 1971 series of photographs, A Camera Recording it Own Condition (7 apertures, 10 speeds, 2 mirrors), Fuller argues that the camera's media ecology consists of the interplay between mathematical, material, and social powers, while demonstrating a medial will to power. Fuller shows how every apparatus is an ensemble of other apparatuses. Thresholds of visibility and disappearance are built into the camera's structure, of its material capacity. When the camera focuses on itself, it is engaged in a cybernetic circuit that brings together forces of form, programs, material structures: in short, a media ecology. Fuller marks out two sets of interconnected and antagonistic relations of force that "make" the camera in this act of recording itself. One, the problematic of the camera working on the condition of being a camera (a machine reflexivity). Second, it mobilizes the constraints and freedoms generated by the correlation of the intensive and extensive qualities embedded within the camera. Fuller expands his exploration of media ecologies by working with multiple "objects": the introduction of an on/off switch in a residential street, BITRadio, "phreaking" of radio broadcasts and others. Perhaps the most argumentative chapter of the book-certainly one of the most lucid ones!-this demonstrates how technology and the dynamics of media systems are appropriated for other, nonofficial purposes. Fuller shows how the "standard object"-a serial element such as an ISO standard shipping container whose "potential" has been stabilized, circumscribes knowledge itself, limiting all other forms of understanding. Standard objects, even as they work with other "forms" define the technicity and organizational frames of systems.

LCSH

Mass media / Aesthetics

Subject

Mass media / Aesthetics

0.06274305 = sum of:
  0.04296252 = product of:
    0.12888756 = sum of:
      0.12888756 = weight(_text_:objects in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12888756 = score(doc=187,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.310393 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.41523993 = fieldWeight in 187, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=187)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.01978053 = product of:
    0.03956106 = sum of:
      0.03956106 = weight(_text_:22 in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03956106 = score(doc=187,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 187, 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=187)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The formal charge for the IFLA study involving international bibliography standards was to delineate the functions that are performed by the bibliographic record with respect to various media, applications, and user needs. The method used was the entity relationship analysis technique. Three groups of entities that are the key objects of interest to users of bibliographic records were defined. The primary group contains four entities: work, expression, manifestation, and item. The second group includes entities responsible for the intellectual or artistic content, production, or ownership of entities in the first group. The third group includes entities that represent concepts, objects, events, and places. In the study we identified the attributes associated with each entity and the relationships that are most important to users. The attributes and relationships were mapped to the functional requirements for bibliographic records that were defined in terms of four user tasks: to find, identify, select, and obtain. Basic requirements for national bibliographic records were recommended based on the entity analysis. The recommendations of the study are compared with two standards, AACR (Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules) and the Dublin Core, to place them into pragmatic context. The results of the study are being used in the review of the complete set of ISBDs as the initial benchmark in determining data elements for each format.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.06274305 = sum of:
  0.04296252 = product of:
    0.12888756 = sum of:
      0.12888756 = weight(_text_:objects in 846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12888756 = score(doc=846,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.310393 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.41523993 = fieldWeight in 846, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=846)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.01978053 = product of:
    0.03956106 = sum of:
      0.03956106 = weight(_text_:22 in 846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03956106 = score(doc=846,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 846, 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=846)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper concerns the dimensions of relevance in information retrieval systems and their completeness in new retrieval contexts such as mobile search. Geography as a factor in relevance is little understood and information seeking is assumed to take place in indoor environments. Yet the rise of information seeking on the move using mobile devices implies the need to better understand the kind of situational relevance operating in this kind of context. Design/methodology/approach - The paper outlines and explores a geographic information seeking process in which geographic information needs (conditioned by needs and tasks, in context) drive the acquisition and use of geographic information objects, which in turn influence geographic behaviour in the environment. Geographic relevance is defined as "a relation between a geographic information need" (like an attention span) and "the spatio-temporal expression of the geographic information objects needed to satisfy it" (like an area of influence). Some empirical examples are given to indicate the theoretical and practical application of this work. Findings - The paper sets out definitions of geographical information needs based on cognitive and geographic criteria, and proposes four canonical cases, which might be theorised as anomalous states of geographic knowledge (ASGK). The paper argues that geographic relevance is best defined as a spatio-temporally extended relation between information need (an "attention" span) and geographic information object (a zone of "influence"), and it defines four domains of geographic relevance. Finally a model of geographic relevance is suggested in which attention and influence are modelled as map layers whose intersection can define the nature of the relation. Originality/value - Geographic relevance is a new field of research that has so far been poorly defined and little researched. This paper sets out new principles for the study of geographic information behaviour.

Date

23.12.2007 14:22:24