Search (1325 results, page 1 of 67)

0.09100805 = product of:
  0.1820161 = sum of:
    0.1820161 = sum of:
      0.0858934 = weight(_text_:r in 8365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0858934 = score(doc=8365,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1677509 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.51202947 = fieldWeight in 8365, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8365)
      0.09612271 = weight(_text_:22 in 8365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09612271 = score(doc=8365,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17745897 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 8365, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8365)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2015 16:08:38

0.07922552 = product of:
  0.15845104 = sum of:
    0.15845104 = sum of:
      0.061352428 = weight(_text_:r in 3975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.061352428 = score(doc=3975,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1677509 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.36573532 = fieldWeight in 3975, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3975)
      0.097098604 = weight(_text_:22 in 3975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.097098604 = score(doc=3975,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17745897 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3975, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3975)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2018 12:06:44
22. 2.2018 12:13:53

0.07800691 = product of:
  0.15601382 = sum of:
    0.15601382 = sum of:
      0.07362292 = weight(_text_:r in 591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07362292 = score(doc=591,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1677509 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.4388824 = fieldWeight in 591, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=591)
      0.0823909 = weight(_text_:22 in 591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0823909 = score(doc=591,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17745897 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 591, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=591)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2013 12:35:05

0.07800691 = product of:
  0.15601382 = sum of:
    0.15601382 = sum of:
      0.07362292 = weight(_text_:r in 2057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07362292 = score(doc=2057,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1677509 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.4388824 = fieldWeight in 2057, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2057)
      0.0823909 = weight(_text_:22 in 2057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0823909 = score(doc=2057,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17745897 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2057, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2057)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

26. 8.2015 10:22:00

Source

Praxishandbuch Bibliotheksmanagement. Hrsg.: R. Griebel, u.a. Bd.1

0.07800691 = product of:
  0.15601382 = sum of:
    0.15601382 = sum of:
      0.07362292 = weight(_text_:r in 2555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07362292 = score(doc=2555,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1677509 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.4388824 = fieldWeight in 2555, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2555)
      0.0823909 = weight(_text_:22 in 2555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0823909 = score(doc=2555,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17745897 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2555, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2555)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

15. 1.2016 19:22:28

0.07771226 = product of:
  0.15542452 = sum of:
    0.15542452 = sum of:
      0.08676544 = weight(_text_:r in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08676544 = score(doc=4992,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1677509 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.5172279 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
      0.06865908 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06865908 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17745897 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, 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=4992)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 2.2012 12:53:22

0.07204373 = sum of:
  0.053638004 = product of:
    0.21455202 = sum of:
      0.21455202 = weight(_text_:author's in 4131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.21455202 = score(doc=4131,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.340551 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.63001436 = fieldWeight in 4131, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4131)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01840573 = product of:
    0.03681146 = sum of:
      0.03681146 = weight(_text_:r in 4131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03681146 = score(doc=4131,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1677509 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 4131, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4131)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many countries are moving towards research policies that emphasize excellence; consequently; they develop evaluation systems to identify universities, research groups, and researchers that can be said to be "excellent." Such active research policy strategies, in which evaluations are used to concentrate resources, are based on an unsubstantiated assumption that researchers' track records are indicative of their future research performance. In this study, information on authors' track records (previous publication volume and previous citation rate) is used to predict the impact of their articles. The study concludes that, to a certain degree, the impact of scientific work can be predicted using information on how often an author's previous publications have been cited. The relationship between past performance and the citation rate of articles is strongest at the high end of the citation distribution. The implications of these results are discussed in the context of a cumulative advantage process.

0.06500576 = product of:
  0.13001151 = sum of:
    0.13001151 = sum of:
      0.061352428 = weight(_text_:r in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.061352428 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1677509 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.36573532 = fieldWeight in 5576, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5576)
      0.06865908 = weight(_text_:22 in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06865908 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17745897 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5576, 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=5576)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13.12.2017 14:17:22

Type

r

0.06500576 = product of:
  0.13001151 = sum of:
    0.13001151 = sum of:
      0.061352428 = weight(_text_:r in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.061352428 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1677509 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.36573532 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
      0.06865908 = weight(_text_:22 in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06865908 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17745897 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2759, 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=2759)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 2.2016 18:25:22

0.06338042 = product of:
  0.12676084 = sum of:
    0.12676084 = sum of:
      0.049081944 = weight(_text_:r in 1699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049081944 = score(doc=1699,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1677509 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 1699, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1699)
      0.07767889 = weight(_text_:22 in 1699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07767889 = score(doc=1699,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17745897 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 1699, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1699)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 22(2010) H.1, S.20-22

0.061863106 = sum of:
  0.044698335 = product of:
    0.17879334 = sum of:
      0.17879334 = weight(_text_:author's in 5491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17879334 = score(doc=5491,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.340551 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.52501196 = fieldWeight in 5491, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5491)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01716477 = product of:
    0.03432954 = sum of:
      0.03432954 = weight(_text_:22 in 5491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03432954 = score(doc=5491,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17745897 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5491, 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=5491)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

RDS are usually cross-disciplinary, centralised services, which are increasingly provided at a university by the academic library and in collaboration with other RDM stakeholders, such as the Research Office. At research-intensive universities, research data is generated in a wide range of disciplines and sub-disciplines. This paper will discuss how providing discipline-specific RDM support is approached by such universities and academic libraries, and the advantages and disadvantages of these central and discipline-specific approaches. A descriptive case study on the author's experiences of collaborating with a central RDS at the University of Cambridge, as a subject librarian embedded in an academic department, is a major component of this paper. The case study describes how centralised RDM services offered by the Office of Scholarly Communication (OSC) have been adapted to meet discipline-specific needs in the Department of Chemistry. It will introduce the department and the OSC, and describe the author's role in delivering RDM training, as well as the Data Champions programme, and their membership of the RDM Project Group. It will describe the outcomes of this collaboration for the Department of Chemistry, and for the centralised service. Centralised and discipline-specific approaches to RDS provision have their own advantages and disadvantages. Supporting the discipline-specific RDM needs of researchers is proving particularly challenging for universities to address sustainably: it requires adequate financial resources and staff skilled (or re-skilled) in RDM. A mixed approach is the most desirable, cost-effective way of providing RDS, but this still has constraints.

Date

7. 9.2019 21:30:22

0.060365275 = product of:
  0.12073055 = sum of:
    0.12073055 = product of:
      0.4829222 = sum of:
        0.4829222 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4829222 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4296323 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050676074 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.058525518 = sum of:
  0.037927795 = product of:
    0.15171118 = sum of:
      0.15171118 = weight(_text_:author's in 2360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15171118 = score(doc=2360,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.340551 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 2360, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2360)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.020597724 = product of:
    0.04119545 = sum of:
      0.04119545 = weight(_text_:22 in 2360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04119545 = score(doc=2360,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17745897 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2360, 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=2360)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reports the author's recent research in developing a holistic model for various levels of digital library (DL) evaluation in which perceived important criteria from heterogeneous stakeholder groups are organized and presented. To develop such a model, the author applied a three-stage research approach: exploration, confirmation, and verification. During the exploration stage, a literature review was conducted followed by an interview, along with a card sorting technique, to collect important criteria perceived by DL experts. Then the criteria identified were used for developing an online survey during the confirmation stage. Survey respondents (431 in total) from 22 countries rated the importance of the criteria. A holistic DL evaluation model was constructed using statistical techniques. Eventually, the verification stage was devised to test the reliability of the model in the context of searching and evaluating an operational DL. The proposed model fills two lacunae in the DL domain: (a) the lack of a comprehensive and flexible framework to guide and benchmark evaluations, and (b) the uncertainty about what divergence exists among heterogeneous DL stakeholders, including general users.

0.058525518 = sum of:
  0.037927795 = product of:
    0.15171118 = sum of:
      0.15171118 = weight(_text_:author's in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15171118 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.340551 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.020597724 = product of:
    0.04119545 = sum of:
      0.04119545 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04119545 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17745897 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4359, 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=4359)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A recent study in information science (IS), raises important issues concerning the value of human indexing and basic theories of indexing and information retrieval, as well as the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in IS and the underlying theories of knowledge informing the field. The present article uses L&E as the point of departure for demonstrating in what way more social and interpretative understandings may provide fruitful improvements for research in indexing, knowledge organization, and information retrieval. The artcle is motivated by the observation that philosophical contributions tend to be ignored in IS if they are not directly formed as criticisms or invitations to dialogs. It is part of the author's ongoing publication of articles about philosophical issues in IS and it is intended to be followed by analyzes of other examples of contributions to core issues in IS. Although it is formulated as a criticism of a specific paper, it should be seen as part of a general discussion of the philosophical foundation of IS and as a support to the emerging social paradigm in this field.

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

0.05439858 = product of:
  0.10879716 = sum of:
    0.10879716 = sum of:
      0.060735807 = weight(_text_:r in 1438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060735807 = score(doc=1438,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1677509 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.3620595 = fieldWeight in 1438, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1438)
      0.048061356 = weight(_text_:22 in 1438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048061356 = score(doc=1438,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17745897 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1438, 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=1438)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.05439858 = product of:
  0.10879716 = sum of:
    0.10879716 = sum of:
      0.060735807 = weight(_text_:r in 2092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060735807 = score(doc=2092,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1677509 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.3620595 = fieldWeight in 2092, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2092)
      0.048061356 = weight(_text_:22 in 2092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048061356 = score(doc=2092,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17745897 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2092, 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=2092)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The object of this literature review is to provide a historical perspective of R and D work in the area of Knowledge Organization (KO). This overview/summarization will provide information on major areas of KO. Journal articles published in core areas of KO: (Classification, Indexing, Thesauri and Taxonomies, Internet and Subject approach to information in the electronic era and Ontologies will be predominantly covered in this literature review. Coverage in this overview may not be completely exhaustive, but it succinctly showcases major developments in the area of KO. This review is a good source of additional reading material on KO apart from prescribed reading material on KO

Date

22. 6.2015 16:13:38

Type

r

0.052004606 = product of:
  0.10400921 = sum of:
    0.10400921 = sum of:
      0.049081944 = weight(_text_:r in 4392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049081944 = score(doc=4392,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1677509 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 4392, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4392)
      0.054927267 = weight(_text_:22 in 4392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054927267 = score(doc=4392,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17745897 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4392, 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=4392)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

BuB. 63(2011) H.1, S.22-23

0.052004606 = product of:
  0.10400921 = sum of:
    0.10400921 = sum of:
      0.049081944 = weight(_text_:r in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049081944 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1677509 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
      0.054927267 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054927267 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17745897 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, 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=1431)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 8.2014 17:05:18

0.052004606 = product of:
  0.10400921 = sum of:
    0.10400921 = sum of:
      0.049081944 = weight(_text_:r in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049081944 = score(doc=1484,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1677509 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 1484, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1484)
      0.054927267 = weight(_text_:22 in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054927267 = score(doc=1484,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17745897 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1484, 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=1484)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 9.2014 14:45:22

Type

r

0.051461823 = product of:
  0.10292365 = sum of:
    0.10292365 = sum of:
      0.068594106 = weight(_text_:r in 3403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.068594106 = score(doc=3403,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.1677509 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.40890455 = fieldWeight in 3403, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3403)
      0.03432954 = weight(_text_:22 in 3403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03432954 = score(doc=3403,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17745897 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050676074 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3403, 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=3403)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

What is knowledge representation and reasoning (KR&R)? Alas, a thorough account would require a book, or at least a dedicated, full-length paper, but here we shall have to make do with something simpler. Since most readers are likely to have an intuitive grasp of the essence of KR&R, our simple account should suffice. The interesting thing is that this simple account itself makes reference to some of the foundational distinctions in the field of philosophy. These distinctions also play a central role in artificial intelligence (AI) and computer science. To begin with, the first distinction in KR&R is that we identify knowledge with knowledge that such-and-such holds (possibly to a degree), rather than knowing how. If you ask an expert tennis player how he manages to serve a ball at 130 miles per hour on his first serve, and then serve a safer, topspin serve on his second should the first be out, you may well receive a confession that, if truth be told, this athlete can't really tell you. He just does it; he does something he has been doing since his youth. Yet, there is no denying that he knows how to serve. In contrast, the knowledge in KR&R must be expressible in declarative statements. For example, our tennis player knows that if his first serve lands outside the service box, it's not in play. He thus knows a proposition, conditional in form.

Date

9. 2.2017 19:22:14

Source

Philosophy, computing and information science. Eds.: R. Hagengruber u. U.V. Riss