Search (1476 results, page 1 of 74)

0.48878115 = product of:
  0.9775623 = sum of:
    0.87925583 = weight(_text_:22nd in 4594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.87925583 = score(doc=4594,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.6389857 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = queryNorm
        1.376018 = fieldWeight in 4594, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4594)
    0.098306455 = weight(_text_:22 in 4594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.098306455 = score(doc=4594,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25408673 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4594, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4594)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This work has been fully updated for the 22nd edition of DDC, and is used as reference for the application of Dewey coding or as a course text in the Dewey System

Object

DDC-22

0.20235461 = product of:
  0.40470922 = sum of:
    0.34572536 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.34572536 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.6151499 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = 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)
    0.05898387 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05898387 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25408673 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = 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(2/4)

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

0.17636444 = product of:
  0.35272887 = sum of:
    0.2486911 = weight(_text_:22nd in 1842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2486911 = score(doc=1842,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.6389857 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = queryNorm
        0.38919666 = fieldWeight in 1842, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1842)
    0.10403777 = weight(_text_:22 in 1842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10403777 = score(doc=1842,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.25408673 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = queryNorm
        0.4094577 = fieldWeight in 1842, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1842)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

A system of library classification that flashed across the inquiring mind of young Melvil Louis Kossuth Dewey (known as Melvil Dewey) in 1873 is still the most popular classification scheme.. The modern library classification begins with Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). Melvil Dewey devised DDC in 1876. DDC has is credit of 128 years of boudless success. The DDC is being taught as a practical subject throughout the world and it is being used in majority of libraries in about 150 countries. This is the result of continuous revision that 22nd Edition of DDC has been published in July 2003. No other classification scheme has published so many editions. Some welcome changes have been made in DDC 22. To reduce the Christian bias in 200 religion, the numbers 201 to 209 have been devoted to specific aspects of religion. In the previous editions these numbers were devoted to Christianity. to enhance the classifier's efficiency, Table 7 has been removed from DDC 22 and the provision of adding group of persons is made by direct use of notation already available in schedules and in notation -08 from Table 1 Standard Subdivision. The present book is an attempt to explain, with suitable examples, the salient provisions of DDC 22. The book is written in simple language so that the students may not face any difficulty in understanding what is being explained. The examples in the book are explained in a step-by-step procedure. It is hoped that this book will prove of great help and use to the library professionals in general and library and information science students in particular.

Content

1. Introduction to DDC 22 2. Major changes in DDC 22 3. Introduction to the schedules 4. Use of Table 1 : Standard Subdivisions 5. Use of Table 2 : Areas 6. Use of Table 3 : Subdivisions for the arts, for individual literatures, for specific literary forms 7. Use to Table 4 : Subdivisions of individual languages and language families 8. Use of Table 5 : Ethic and National groups 9. Use of Table 6 : Languages 10. Treatment of Groups of Persons

Object

DDC-22

0.16743322 = product of:
  0.33486643 = sum of:
    0.25622126 = weight(_text_:objects in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25622126 = score(doc=767,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.38565242 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = 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)
    0.07864516 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07864516 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25408673 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = 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(2/4)

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

0.15589198 = product of:
  0.31178397 = sum of:
    0.26921603 = weight(_text_:22nd in 129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.26921603 = score(doc=129,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.6389857 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = queryNorm
        0.4213178 = fieldWeight in 129, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=129)
    0.042567946 = weight(_text_:22 in 129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042567946 = score(doc=129,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.25408673 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = queryNorm
        0.16753313 = fieldWeight in 129, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=129)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Footnote

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

Issue

22nd ed.

Object

DDC-22

0.15117706 = product of:
  0.30235413 = sum of:
    0.2532009 = weight(_text_:objects in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2532009 = score(doc=2754,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.38565242 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = 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)
    0.049153227 = weight(_text_:22 in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049153227 = score(doc=2754,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25408673 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = 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(2/4)

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

0.12991047 = product of:
  0.25982094 = sum of:
    0.18117578 = weight(_text_:objects in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18117578 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38565242 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = 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)
    0.07864516 = weight(_text_:22 in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07864516 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25408673 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = 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(2/4)

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

0.12792361 = product of:
  0.25584722 = sum of:
    0.1585288 = weight(_text_:objects in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1585288 = score(doc=2746,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38565242 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = 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)
    0.097318426 = weight(_text_:22 in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.097318426 = score(doc=2746,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25408673 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = 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(2/4)

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

0.1255749 = product of:
  0.2511498 = sum of:
    0.19216594 = weight(_text_:objects in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19216594 = score(doc=4752,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.38565242 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = 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)
    0.05898387 = weight(_text_:22 in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05898387 = score(doc=4752,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25408673 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = 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(2/4)

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

0.11524179 = product of:
  0.46096715 = sum of:
    0.46096715 = weight(_text_:3a in 140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.46096715 = score(doc=140,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.6151499 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 140, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=140)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vgl. auch: https://studylibde.com/doc/13053640/richard-schrodt. Vgl. auch: http%3A%2F%2Fwww.univie.ac.at%2FGermanistik%2Fschrodt%2Fvorlesung%2Fwissenschaftssprache.doc&usg=AOvVaw1lDLDR6NFf1W0-oC9mEUJf.

0.11367166 = product of:
  0.22734332 = sum of:
    0.1585288 = weight(_text_:objects in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1585288 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38565242 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = 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)
    0.068814516 = weight(_text_:22 in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068814516 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25408673 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = 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(2/4)

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

0.10464575 = product of:
  0.2092915 = sum of:
    0.16013828 = weight(_text_:objects in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16013828 = score(doc=187,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.38565242 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = 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)
    0.049153227 = weight(_text_:22 in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049153227 = score(doc=187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25408673 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = 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(2/4)

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

0.10464575 = product of:
  0.2092915 = sum of:
    0.16013828 = weight(_text_:objects in 846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16013828 = score(doc=846,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.38565242 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = 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)
    0.049153227 = weight(_text_:22 in 846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049153227 = score(doc=846,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25408673 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = 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(2/4)

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

0.10464575 = product of:
  0.2092915 = sum of:
    0.16013828 = weight(_text_:objects in 2938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16013828 = score(doc=2938,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.38565242 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = queryNorm
        0.41523993 = fieldWeight in 2938, 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=2938)
    0.049153227 = weight(_text_:22 in 2938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049153227 = score(doc=2938,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25408673 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2938, 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=2938)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

We present CopeOpi, an opinion-analysis system, which extracts from the Web opinions about specific targets, summarizes the polarity and strength of these opinions, and tracks opinion variations over time. Objects that yield similar opinion tendencies over a certain time period may be correlated due to the latent causal events. CopeOpi discovers relationships among objects based on their opinion-tracking plots and collocations. Event bursts are detected from the tracking plots, and the strength of opinion relationships is determined by the coverage of these plots. To evaluate opinion mining, we use the NTCIR corpus annotated with opinion information at sentence and document levels. CopeOpi achieves sentence- and document-level f-measures of 62% and 74%. For relationship discovery, we collected 1.3M economics-related documents from 93 Web sources over 22 months, and analyzed collocation-based, opinion-based, and hybrid models. We consider as correlated company pairs that demonstrate similar stock-price variations, and selected these as the gold standard for evaluation. Results show that opinion-based and collocation-based models complement each other, and that integrated models perform the best. The top 25, 50, and 100 pairs discovered achieve precision rates of 1, 0.92, and 0.79, respectively.

0.10083657 = product of:
  0.40334627 = sum of:
    0.40334627 = weight(_text_:3a in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.40334627 = score(doc=306,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.6151499 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = queryNorm
        0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vgl.: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5386707&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5386707.

0.09743285 = product of:
  0.1948657 = sum of:
    0.13588184 = weight(_text_:objects in 4897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13588184 = score(doc=4897,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38565242 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 4897, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4897)
    0.05898387 = weight(_text_:22 in 4897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05898387 = score(doc=4897,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25408673 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4897, 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=4897)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Texas A&M University Libraries developed a Web-based training (WBT) application for LandView III, a federal depository CD-ROM publication using cross-browser dynamic HTML (DHTML) and other Web technologies. The interactive and self-paced tutorial demonstrates the major features of the CD-ROM and shows how to navigate the programs. The tutorial features dynamic HTML techniques, such as hiding, showing and moving layers; dragging objects; and windows-style drop-down menus. It also integrates interactive forms, common gateway interface (CGI), frames, and animated GIF images in the design of the WBT. After describing the design and implementation of the tutorial project, an evaluation of usage statistics and user feedback was conducted, as well as an assessment of its strengths and weaknesses, and a comparison of this tutorial with other common types of training methods. The present article describes an innovative approach for CD-ROM training using advanced Web technologies such as dynamic HTML, which can simulate and demonstrate the interactive use of the CD-ROM, as well as the actual search process of a database.

Date

28. 1.2006 19:21:22

0.09743285 = product of:
  0.1948657 = sum of:
    0.13588184 = weight(_text_:objects in 2368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13588184 = score(doc=2368,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38565242 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 2368, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2368)
    0.05898387 = weight(_text_:22 in 2368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05898387 = score(doc=2368,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25408673 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2368, 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=2368)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Although there have been a number of fairly recent studies in which researchers have explored the information-seeking and management behaviors of people interacting with musical retrieval systems, there have been very few published studies of the interaction and use behaviors of musicians interacting with their primary information object, the musical score. The ethnographic research reported here seeks to correct this deficiency in the literature. In addition to observing rehearsals and conducting 22 in-depth musician interviews, this research provides in-depth analysis of 25,000 annotations representing 250 parts from 13 complete musical works, made by musicians of all skill levels and performance modes. In addition to producing specific and practical recommendations for digital-library development, this research also provides an augmented annotation framework that will enable more specific study of human-information interaction, both with musical scores, and with more general notational/instructional information objects.

0.09743285 = product of:
  0.1948657 = sum of:
    0.13588184 = weight(_text_:objects in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13588184 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38565242 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 2418, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2418)
    0.05898387 = weight(_text_:22 in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05898387 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25408673 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2418, 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=2418)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Integrated digital access to multiple collections is a prominent issue for many Cultural Heritage institutions. The metadata describing diverse collections must be interoperable, which requires aligning the controlled vocabularies that are used to annotate objects from these collections. In this paper, we present an experiment where we match the vocabularies of two collections by applying the Knowledge Representation techniques established in recent Semantic Web research. We discuss the steps that are required for such matching, namely formalising the initial resources using Semantic Web languages, and running ontology mapping tools on the resulting representations. In addition, we present a prototype that enables the user to browse the two collections using the obtained alignment while still providing her with the original vocabulary structures.

Source

Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006

0.09743285 = product of:
  0.1948657 = sum of:
    0.13588184 = weight(_text_:objects in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13588184 = score(doc=2419,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38565242 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 2419, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2419)
    0.05898387 = weight(_text_:22 in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05898387 = score(doc=2419,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25408673 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2419, 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=2419)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The digital library system Daffodil is targeted at strategic support of users during the information search process. For searching, exploring and managing digital library objects it provides user-customisable information seeking patterns over a federation of heterogeneous digital libraries. In this paper evaluation results with respect to retrieval effectiveness, efficiency and user satisfaction are presented. The analysis focuses on strategic support for the scientific work-flow. Daffodil supports the whole work-flow, from data source selection over information seeking to the representation, organisation and reuse of information. By embedding high level search functionality into the scientific work-flow, the user experiences better strategic system support due to a more systematic work process. These ideas have been implemented in Daffodil followed by a qualitative evaluation. The evaluation has been conducted with 28 participants, ranging from information seeking novices to experts. The results are promising, as they support the chosen model.

Date

16.11.2008 16:22:48

0.09743285 = product of:
  0.1948657 = sum of:
    0.13588184 = weight(_text_:objects in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13588184 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38565242 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
    0.05898387 = weight(_text_:22 in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05898387 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25408673 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.072558284 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2623, 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=2623)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Contemporary retrieval systems, which search across collections, usually ignore collection-level metadata. Alternative approaches, exploiting collection-level information, will require an understanding of the various kinds of relationships that can obtain between collection-level and item-level metadata. This paper outlines the problem and describes a project that is developing a logic-based framework for classifying collection/item metadata relationships. This framework will support (i) metadata specification developers defining metadata elements, (ii) metadata creators describing objects, and (iii) system designers implementing systems that take advantage of collection-level metadata. We present three examples of collection/item metadata relationship categories, attribute/value-propagation, value-propagation, and value-constraint and show that even in these simple cases a precise formulation requires modal notions in addition to first-order logic. These formulations are related to recent work in information retrieval and ontology evaluation.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas