Search (1066 results, page 1 of 54)

0.13261355 = product of:
  0.19892032 = sum of:
    0.15233766 = product of:
      0.45701295 = sum of:
        0.45701295 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.45701295 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4878985 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057548698 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.04658267 = product of:
      0.09316534 = sum of:
        0.09316534 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09316534 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2202888 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057548698 = queryNorm
            0.42292362 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.13120382 = product of:
  0.19680572 = sum of:
    0.16951603 = weight(_text_:systematik in 5116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16951603 = score(doc=5116,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.355158 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057548698 = queryNorm
        0.4772975 = fieldWeight in 5116, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5116)
    0.027289689 = product of:
      0.054579377 = sum of:
        0.054579377 = weight(_text_:22 in 5116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054579377 = score(doc=5116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20152573 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057548698 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5116, 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=5116)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Dieser Beitrag beschreibt die Entwicklung der Gesamthochschulbibliothekssystematik (GHBS) als Aufstellungssystematik der Gesamthochschulbibliotheken (GHBs) in Nordrhein-Westfalen (NRW) seit den 1970er Jahren bis heute. Dabei werden zunächst mittels Literaturauswertung und Archivmaterial entscheidende Entwicklungspunkte kursorisch bis zum Ende der gemeinsamen Pflege der Systematik im Jahre 2004 dargestellt. Die Einflüsse lokaler Interessengruppen sowie technischer Veränderungen auf die kooperative Klassifikationsentwicklung werden betrachtet. Die Untersuchung wird durch Experteninterviews erweitert. Konzeption und Auswertung der Interviews bedienen sich der qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse nach Gläser und Laudel und des Ressourcenabhängigkeitsansatzes (RDT). Aus Experteninterviews und Literaturauswertung wird sich eine heute nur noch nachrangige Bedeutung der Klassifikationsentwicklung sowie ein Mangel an Aufsichts- und Sanktionierungsmaßnahmen gegenüber den GHBs ergeben

Date

17. 3.2019 16:22:59

0.12634979 = product of:
  0.37904936 = sum of:
    0.37904936 = weight(_text_:systematik in 4278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.37904936 = score(doc=4278,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.355158 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057548698 = queryNorm
        1.0672697 = fieldWeight in 4278, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4278)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Dieser Beitrag behandelt die in Österreich und Deutschland in Öffentlichen Bibliotheken weit verbreiteten Klassifikationen. Dies sind in Deutschland im Wesentlichen die Systematik für Bibliotheken (SfB), die Allgemeine Systematik für Öffentliche Bibliotheken (ASB), die daraus entwickelte Systematik der Stadtbibliothek Duisburg (SSD), die Klassifikation für Allgemeinbibliotheken (KAB) sowie die beiden konfessionell geprägten und verwendeten Klassifikationen Sachbuchsystematik für Katholische öffentliche Büchereien (SKB) und Systematik für evangelische Büchereien (SEB). In Österreich wird weitestgehend die Österreichische Systematik für öffentliche Bibliotheken (ÖSÖB) verwendet. Diese Klassifikationen werden unter dem Gesichtspunkt ihrer formalen Eigenschaften (Hierarchien, Klassenbeschreibungen) und unter der Fragestellung ihrer inhaltlichen Eignung für den Anwendungsbereich untersucht.

0.11185159 = product of:
  0.33555475 = sum of:
    0.33555475 = weight(_text_:systematik in 1277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.33555475 = score(doc=1277,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.355158 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057548698 = queryNorm
        0.94480413 = fieldWeight in 1277, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1277)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Die in ihren Grundzügen hierarchisch angelegte Aufstellungssystematik der Bibliothek der Universität Konstanz ist im Laufe der Zeit durch zahlreiche nicht-hierarchische Strukturen ergänzt worden, so dass ein heterogenes Gebilde entstanden ist. Außerdem kam der Wunsch nach Austauschbarkeit der Konstanzer Klassifikation mit anderen bibliothekarischen Einrichtungen auf. Aus diesen Gründen soll die Systematik nun bereinigt werden. Dazu wird als zentrales Werkzeug ein Diagnosealgorithmus benötigt, welcher sichtbar macht, wie weit die aktuelle Systematik von einem vorher zu definierenden, möglichst baumförmigen Idealzustand entfernt ist. In diesem Projekt ist ein solcher Algorithmus entwickelt und implementiert worden.

0.09242021 = product of:
  0.27726063 = sum of:
    0.27726063 = sum of:
      0.2304783 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2304783 = score(doc=3197,freq=34.0), product of:
          0.2202888 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057548698 = queryNorm
          1.0462552 = fieldWeight in 3197, product of:
            5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
              34.0 = termFreq=34.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3197)
      0.046782322 = weight(_text_:22 in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046782322 = score(doc=3197,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20152573 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057548698 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3197, 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=3197)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Indexing consists of both novel and more traditional techniques. Cutting-edge indexing techniques, such as automatic indexing, ontologies, and topic maps, were developed independently of older techniques such as thesauri, but it is now recognized that these older methods also hold expertise. Indexing describes various traditional and novel indexing techniques, giving information professionals and students of library and information sciences a broad and comprehensible introduction to indexing. This title consists of twelve chapters: an Introduction to subject readings and theasauri; Automatic indexing versus manual indexing; Techniques applied in automatic indexing of text material; Automatic indexing of images; The black art of indexing moving images; Automatic indexing of music; Taxonomies and ontologies; Metadata formats and indexing; Tagging; Topic maps; Indexing the web; and The Semantic Web.

Date

24. 8.2016 14:03:22

LCSH

Indexing

Subject

Indexing

0.08986671 = product of:
  0.13480006 = sum of:
    0.029936943 = product of:
      0.089810826 = sum of:
        0.089810826 = weight(_text_:objects in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.089810826 = score(doc=4143,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.30587542 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057548698 = queryNorm
            0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 4143, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4143)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.10486312 = sum of:
      0.06587785 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06587785 = score(doc=4143,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2202888 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057548698 = queryNorm
          0.29905218 = fieldWeight in 4143, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4143)
      0.03898527 = weight(_text_:22 in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03898527 = score(doc=4143,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20152573 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057548698 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4143, 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=4143)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The Nuovo Soggettario is a subject indexing system edited by the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze. It was presented to librarians from across Italy on 8 February 2007 in Florence as a new edition of the Soggettario (1956), and it has become the official Italian subject indexing tool. This system is made up of two individual and interactive components: the general thesaurus, accessible on the web since 2007 and the rules of a conventional syntax for the construction of subject strings. The Nuovo soggettario thesaurus has grown significantly in terms of terminology and connections with other knowledge organization tools (e.g., encyclopedias, dictionaries, resources of archives and museums, and other information data sets), offering the users the possibility to browse through documents, books, objects, photographs, etc. The conversion of the Nuovo soggettario thesaurus into formats suitable for the semantic web and linked data world improves its function as an interlinking hub for direct searching and for organizing content by different professional communities. Thanks to structured data and the SKOS format, the Nuovo soggettario thesaurus is published on the Data Hub platform, thus giving broad visibility to the BNCF and its precious patrimony.

Content

Beitrag eines Special Issue: ISKO-Italy: 8' Incontro ISKO Italia, Università di Bologna, 22 maggio 2017, Bologna, Italia.

0.08072192 = product of:
  0.24216576 = sum of:
    0.24216576 = weight(_text_:systematik in 4050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24216576 = score(doc=4050,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.355158 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057548698 = queryNorm
        0.6818536 = fieldWeight in 4050, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4050)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Der Konstanzer Bachelor- und Master-Studiengang Literatur - Kunst - Medien erfreut sich mit rund 350 Studierenden zunehmender Beliebtheit, die Bestände der Bibliothek der Universität Konstanz dazu wachsen erfreulicherweise weiter und werden -zumindest im Bereich Literatur und Kunst - nach der hauseigenen Konstanzer Systematik differenziert und frei zugänglich aufgestellt, so dass man direkt ans Regal gehen kann, um dort zu einem Thema zu browsen und sich inspirieren zu lassen. Leider trifft - inzwischen darf man sagen traf - das nicht für den Bereich Medienwissenschaft zu. Für sie gab es in Konstanz keine Systematik, lediglich eine Stelle für Mediengeschichte und eine für Medientheorie, untergebracht im Bereich "Theater, Film, Fernsehen" zwischen Rundfunk und Hörfunk, also gewissermaßen in einer klassifikatorischen Notunterkunft. Die Folge: Mangels einer geeigneten Klassifikation für die Medienwissenschaft wurden die medienwissenschaftlichen Neuzugänge in der Bibliothek seit Jahren über alle Fächer verstreut aufgestellt: Viel landete in der Soziologie, dort im Bereich Kommunikationswissenschaft, anderes landete in der Filmwissenschaft, manches in der Literaturwissenschaft oder der Kunstwissenschaft und wieder anderes in der Philosophie oder in der Kulturwissenschaft. Ziel war es, die medienwissenschaftlichen Bestände unter einer schlüssigen, hinreichend differenzierten Systematik zusammenzuführen, um es zu ermöglichen, auch hier mit Spaß in diesem Bestand zu browsen und unseren Medienwissenschaftlerinnen ein paar Kilometer beim Zusammensuchen ihrer Literatur zu ersparen.

0.08072192 = product of:
  0.24216576 = sum of:
    0.24216576 = weight(_text_:systematik in 3578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24216576 = score(doc=3578,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.355158 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057548698 = queryNorm
        0.6818536 = fieldWeight in 3578, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3578)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In sieben arbeitsintensiven Sitzungen entwickelte die Expertinnen-Gruppe der Systematik-Kooperation ASB-KAB-Überarbeitung die Online-Version der KAB in Wiki-Form.

0.079910636 = product of:
  0.2397319 = sum of:
    0.2397319 = weight(_text_:systematik in 3235) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2397319 = score(doc=3235,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.355158 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057548698 = queryNorm
        0.67500067 = fieldWeight in 3235, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3235)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Nach einer einleitenden Diskussion der Benennungen Dokumentenkunde und Dokumentologie wird der diesbezügliche Objektbereich der Informationswissenschaft begründet. Es wird dazu eine Systematik vorgestellt, die von 1968 bis 1970 vom UDC-Revisions-Komitee 03/04 mit etwa 2000 Begriffen und Codes auf 37 Seiten erarbeitet und von der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Dokumentation nur in wenigen Kopien gedruckt und bislang noch nicht allgemein publik gemacht wurde. Das System wurde auch vom FID Central Classification Committee weder verabschiedet noch publiziert. Die Tabellen werden aus Platzgründen kumuliert wiedergegeben. Abschließend wird ein Vorschlag für eine neue Gliederung unterbreitet und die Verwendung der Systematik im Zusammenhang mit der Information Coding Classification erörtert.

0.077003255 = product of:
  0.115504876 = sum of:
    0.029936943 = product of:
      0.089810826 = sum of:
        0.089810826 = weight(_text_:objects in 3733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.089810826 = score(doc=3733,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.30587542 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057548698 = queryNorm
            0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 3733, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3733)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.08556794 = sum of:
      0.04658267 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04658267 = score(doc=3733,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2202888 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057548698 = queryNorm
          0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 3733, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3733)
      0.03898527 = weight(_text_:22 in 3733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03898527 = score(doc=3733,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20152573 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057548698 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3733, 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=3733)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The focus of the present research has been the development and the application to Virtual Archaeology of a Web-Based framework for Learning Objects indexing and retrieval. The paper presents the main outcomes of a experimentation carried out by an interdisciplinary group of Federico II University of Naples. Our equipe is composed by researchers both in ICT and in Humanities disciplines, in particular in the domain of Virtual Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Informatics in order to develop specific ICT methodological approaches to Virtual Archaeology. The methodological background is the progressive diffusion of Web 2.0 technologies and the attempt to analyze their impact and perspectives in the Cultural Heritage field. In particular, we approached the specific requirements of the so called Learning 2.0, and the possibility to improve the automation of modular courseware generation in Virtual Archaeology Didactics. The developed framework was called SEMANTICA, and it was applied to Virtual Archaeology Domain Ontologies in order to generate a didactic course in a semi-automated way. The main results of this test and the first students feedback on the course fruition will be presented and discussed..

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.077003255 = product of:
  0.115504876 = sum of:
    0.029936943 = product of:
      0.089810826 = sum of:
        0.089810826 = weight(_text_:objects in 1410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.089810826 = score(doc=1410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.30587542 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057548698 = queryNorm
            0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 1410, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1410)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.08556794 = sum of:
      0.04658267 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04658267 = score(doc=1410,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2202888 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057548698 = queryNorm
          0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 1410, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1410)
      0.03898527 = weight(_text_:22 in 1410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03898527 = score(doc=1410,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20152573 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057548698 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1410, 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=1410)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper aims to study the conceptual dimension of Knowledge Organization (KO) in the ISKO proceedings (1990-2012) domain. After analyzing a corpus of 71 papers that presented the term "knowledge organization" in their titles, using the methodology of Bardin's content analysis, it was possible to obtain a set of 11 definitions of KO which were studied using the following categories: nature, object, tools, processes, and perspectives/approaches. These categories act as a basis to identify the communities of authors that interact in the domain under different conceptual perspectives. The results show that KO has been mainly understood as an area or field of knowledge whose objects are recorded knowledge and conceptual structures, and whose main processes are classification and indexing, as well as information retrieval. The nature of KO is mostly linked to the construction of specialized discourses and the methodological dimension of such area is related to the systematization of recorded scientific knowledge.

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

0.074075416 = product of:
  0.11111312 = sum of:
    0.083823435 = product of:
      0.2514703 = sum of:
        0.2514703 = weight(_text_:objects in 5455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2514703 = score(doc=5455,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.30587542 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057548698 = queryNorm
            0.82213306 = fieldWeight in 5455, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5455)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.027289689 = product of:
      0.054579377 = sum of:
        0.054579377 = weight(_text_:22 in 5455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054579377 = score(doc=5455,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20152573 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057548698 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5455, 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=5455)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Although classification has been an important aspect of astronomy since stellar spectroscopy in the late nineteenth century, to date no comprehensive classification system has existed for all classes of objects in the universe. Here we present such a system, and lay out its foundational definitions and principles. The system consists of the "Three Kingdoms" of planets, stars and galaxies, eighteen families, and eighty-two classes of objects. Gravitation is the defining organizing principle for the families and classes, and the physical nature of the objects is the defining characteristic of the classes. The system should prove useful for both scientific and pedagogical purposes.

Date

21.11.2019 18:46:22

0.0719772 = product of:
  0.1079658 = sum of:
    0.08467446 = product of:
      0.25402337 = sum of:
        0.25402337 = weight(_text_:objects in 680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25402337 = score(doc=680,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.30587542 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057548698 = queryNorm
            0.83047986 = fieldWeight in 680, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=680)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.023291335 = product of:
      0.04658267 = sum of:
        0.04658267 = weight(_text_:indexing in 680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04658267 = score(doc=680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2202888 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057548698 = queryNorm
            0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 680, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=680)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In this article, we investigate what sorts of information humans request about geographical objects of the same type. For example, Edinburgh Castle and Bodiam Castle are two objects of the same type: "castle." The question is whether specific information is requested for the object type "castle" and how this information differs for objects of other types (e.g., church, museum, or lake). We aim to answer this question using an online survey. In the survey, we showed 184 participants 200 images pertaining to urban and rural objects and asked them to write questions for which they would like to know the answers when seeing those objects. Our analysis of the 6,169 questions collected in the survey shows that humans have shared ideas of what to ask about geographical objects. When the object types resemble each other (e.g., church and temple), the requested information is similar for the objects of these types. Otherwise, the information is specific to an object type. Our results may be very useful in guiding Natural Language Processing tasks involving automatic generation of templates for image descriptions and their assessment, as well as image indexing and organization.

0.06849483 = product of:
  0.20548446 = sum of:
    0.20548446 = weight(_text_:systematik in 581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20548446 = score(doc=581,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.355158 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057548698 = queryNorm
        0.578572 = fieldWeight in 581, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=581)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Der Alte Realkatalog (ARK) der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, ein im 19. Jahrhundert angelegter Sachkatalog, erschließt rund drei Millionen Bände, die zwischen 1501 und 1955 erschienen sind. Ziel des ARK-Online-Projekts ist es, die Systematik des über 1.800 Bände umfassenden Katalogs online bereitzustellen und die Titelanzeige für alle Systemstellen zu ermöglichen. Damit wird der deutschlandweit umfangreichste historische Druckschriftenbestand über eine Online-Systematik erschlossen. - Die einzelnen Systemstellen werden mit Elementen der modernen Sacherschließung in Form von Schlagworten und Basisklassifikation beschrieben. Diese Sacherschließungsdaten werden im Rahmen des Projektes für eine automatisierte Übertragung auf die Titel des Altbestands genutzt. Damit kann eine sachliche Online-Titelrecherche gemeinsam für den Neubestand und den bisher weitestgehend so nicht erschlossenen Altbestand lokal, überregional und weltweit erfolgen.

0.06590611 = product of:
  0.09885916 = sum of:
    0.059873886 = product of:
      0.17962165 = sum of:
        0.17962165 = weight(_text_:objects in 3277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17962165 = score(doc=3277,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.30587542 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057548698 = queryNorm
            0.58723795 = fieldWeight in 3277, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3277)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.03898527 = product of:
      0.07797054 = sum of:
        0.07797054 = weight(_text_:22 in 3277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07797054 = score(doc=3277,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20152573 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057548698 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3277, 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=3277)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou

0.064577535 = product of:
  0.1937326 = sum of:
    0.1937326 = weight(_text_:systematik in 4433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1937326 = score(doc=4433,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.355158 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057548698 = queryNorm
        0.5454829 = fieldWeight in 4433, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4433)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

We provide the following authority files of the German National Library as SPARQL endpoints: - Personennamendatei - Gemeinsame Körperschaftsdatei - Schlagwortnormdatei We provide the following authority files of museumsvokabular.de as SPARQL endpoints: - Oberbegriffsdatei - Grobsystematik - Hessische Systematik

0.064577535 = product of:
  0.1937326 = sum of:
    0.1937326 = weight(_text_:systematik in 4490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1937326 = score(doc=4490,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.355158 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057548698 = queryNorm
        0.5454829 = fieldWeight in 4490, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4490)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.064577535 = product of:
  0.1937326 = sum of:
    0.1937326 = weight(_text_:systematik in 5117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1937326 = score(doc=5117,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.355158 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057548698 = queryNorm
        0.5454829 = fieldWeight in 5117, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1714344 = idf(docFreq=250, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5117)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Der Beitrag zeigt am Beispiel des Fachs Politikwissenschaft wie eine Aufstellungssystematik aktualisiert werden kann, um eine flexible und anpassbare Systematik für zukünftige Veränderungen zu schaffen. Im Bereich der Politikwissenschaft hat sich gezeigt, dass eine Modernisierung dringend nötig war, da die in den 70er Jahren entwickelte Haussystematik mittlerweile von den politischen Gegebenheiten überholt war. Dieser Artikel soll einen Überblick über Konzeption, Ablauf und Durchführung eines solchen Umsystematisierungsprozesses aufzeigen, der auch als Blaupause für anderen Bibliotheken mit hauseigener Systematisierung dienen kann.

0.06382337 = product of:
  0.19147012 = sum of:
    0.19147012 = sum of:
      0.12909368 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12909368 = score(doc=1149,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2202888 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057548698 = queryNorm
          0.5860202 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.062376432 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.062376432 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20152573 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057548698 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other.

Date

17.12.2013 11:02:22

Theme

Citation indexing

0.061462723 = product of:
  0.09219408 = sum of:
    0.05185231 = product of:
      0.15555692 = sum of:
        0.15555692 = weight(_text_:objects in 4977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15555692 = score(doc=4977,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.30587542 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057548698 = queryNorm
            0.508563 = fieldWeight in 4977, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4977)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.040341776 = product of:
      0.08068355 = sum of:
        0.08068355 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08068355 = score(doc=4977,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2202888 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057548698 = queryNorm
            0.3662626 = fieldWeight in 4977, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4977)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

An efficient and robust medical-image indexing procedure should be user-oriented. It is essential to index the images at the right level of description and ensure that the indexed levels match the user's interest level. This study examines 240 medical-image descriptions produced by three different groups of medical-image users (novices, intermediates, and experts) in the area of radiography. This article reports several important findings: First, the effect of domain knowledge has a significant relationship with the use of semantic image attributes in image-users' descriptions. We found that experts employ more high-level image attributes which require high-reasoning or diagnostic knowledge to search for a medical image (Abstract Objects and Scenes) than do novices; novices are more likely to describe some basic objects which do not require much radiological knowledge to search for an image they need (Generic Objects) than are experts. Second, all image users in this study prefer to use image attributes of the semantic levels to represent the image that they desired to find, especially using those specific-level and scene-related attributes. Third, image attributes generated by medical-image users can be mapped to all levels of the pyramid model that was developed to structure visual information. Therefore, the pyramid model could be considered a robust instrument for indexing medical imagery.