Search (271 results, page 1 of 14)

0.08288572 = product of:
  0.2072143 = sum of:
    0.15466951 = weight(_text_:objects in 127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15466951 = score(doc=127,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 127, 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=127)
    0.05254479 = weight(_text_:21 in 127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05254479 = score(doc=127,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.23959327 = fieldWeight in 127, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=127)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article discusses how libraries can include person identifiers in the MARC format. It suggests using URIs in fields and subfields to help transition the data to an RDF model, and to help prepare the catalog for a Linked Data. It analyzes the selection of URIs and Real-World Objects, and the use of tag 024 to describe person identifiers in authority records. When a creator or collaborator is identified in a work, the identifiers are transferred from authority to the bibliographic record. The article concludes that URI-based descriptions can provide a better experience for users, offering other methods of discovery.

0.08206907 = product of:
  0.20517267 = sum of:
    0.09007679 = weight(_text_:21 in 4156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09007679 = score(doc=4156,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.41073132 = fieldWeight in 4156, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4156)
    0.11509588 = weight(_text_:22 in 4156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11509588 = score(doc=4156,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4156, 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=4156)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

21. 1.2018 19:12:56
2. 3.2020 14:08:22

0.08167857 = product of:
  0.20419642 = sum of:
    0.15623981 = weight(_text_:objects in 5757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15623981 = score(doc=5757,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.41523993 = fieldWeight in 5757, 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=5757)
    0.04795662 = weight(_text_:22 in 5757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04795662 = score(doc=5757,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5757, 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=5757)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Cultural heritage institutions are publishing their digital collections over the web as LOD. This is is a new step in the patrimonialization and curatorial processes developed by such institutions. Many of these collections are thematically superimposed and complementary. Frequently, objects in these collections present culturally relevant relationships, such as a book about a painting, or a draft or sketch of a famous painting, etc. LOD technology enables such heritage records to be interlinked, achieving interoperability and adding value to digital collections, thus empowering heritage institutions. An aim of this research is characterizing such culturally relevant relationships and organizing them in a vocabulary. Use cases or examples of relationships between objects suggested by curators or mentioned in literature and in the conceptual models as FRBR/LRM, CIDOC CRM and RiC-CM, were collected and used as examples or inspiration of cultural relevant relationships. Relationships identified are collated and compared for identifying those with the same or similar meaning, synthesized and normalized. A set of thirty-three culturally relevant relationships are identified and formalized as a LOD property vocabulary to be used by digital curators to interlink digital collections. The results presented are provisional and a starting point to be discussed, tested, and enhanced.

Date

4. 3.2020 14:22:41

0.067461774 = product of:
  0.33730885 = sum of:
    0.33730885 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.33730885 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.6001744 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, 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=862)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN

0.05920409 = product of:
  0.14801022 = sum of:
    0.11047824 = weight(_text_:objects in 92) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11047824 = score(doc=92,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 92, 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=92)
    0.037531994 = weight(_text_:21 in 92) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037531994 = score(doc=92,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.17113805 = fieldWeight in 92, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=92)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

While it is widely recognized that value perception increases when individuals engage in making physical objects, the impact of peer presence on value perception during production or consumption has not been studied. Peer production is prevalent for information products, which are the focus of the present study. Most research to date has focused on value as perceived by consumers, while consumers are increasingly involved in online processes of information production. Information, being intangible and experiential, is a unique type of good. This study places participants in the position of producing or consuming information in order to assess effects of peer group size on value perceptions. Six hundred and fifty one participants took part in 16 information consumption and production experiments. Consumers read information and producers created the same information. Consumers' willingness-to-pay and producers' willingness-to-accept payment were measured before or after peer consumption and production. Results indicate that value perception is highest when participants consume information individually, declining in small and medium-sized groups and growing in mass consumption. Generally, post-consumption values are higher. In production, point of measurement is cardinal. Before production, value perceived individually is lowest, however, having experienced peer production, individuals ascribe the highest value to self-production. Value perceptions in massive groups converge.

Date

21. 1.2021 11:35:30

0.056218147 = product of:
  0.28109074 = sum of:
    0.28109074 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28109074 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.6001744 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

"Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."

0.056218147 = product of:
  0.28109074 = sum of:
    0.28109074 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28109074 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.6001744 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.

0.054712713 = product of:
  0.13678178 = sum of:
    0.06005119 = weight(_text_:21 in 223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06005119 = score(doc=223,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.27382088 = fieldWeight in 223, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=223)
    0.076730594 = weight(_text_:22 in 223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076730594 = score(doc=223,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 223, 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=223)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

22. 1.2021 14:38:21

0.044191297 = product of:
  0.22095647 = sum of:
    0.22095647 = weight(_text_:objects in 5718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22095647 = score(doc=5718,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.58723795 = fieldWeight in 5718, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5718)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Persistent identifiers (PID's) are essential for getting access and referring to library, archive and museum (LAM) collection objects in a sustainable and unambiguous way, both internally and externally. Heritage institutions need a universal policy for the use of PID's in order to have an efficient digital infrastructure at their disposal and to achieve optimal interoperability, leading to open data, open collections and efficient resource management. Here the discussion is limited to PID's that institutions can assign to objects they own or administer themselves. PID's for people, subjects etc. can be used by heritage institutions, but are generally managed by other parties. The first part of this article consists of a general theoretical description of persistent identifiers. First of all, I discuss the questions of what persistent identifiers are and what they are not, and what is needed to administer and use them. The most commonly used existing PID systems are briefly characterized. Then I discuss the types of objects PID's can be assigned to. This section concludes with an overview of the requirements that apply if PIDs should also be used for linked data. The second part examines current infrastructural practices, and existing PID systems and their advantages and shortcomings. Based on these practical issues and the pros and cons of existing PID systems a list of requirements for PID systems is presented which is used to address a number of practical considerations. This section concludes with a number of recommendations.

0.044191297 = product of:
  0.22095647 = sum of:
    0.22095647 = weight(_text_:objects in 5732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22095647 = score(doc=5732,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.58723795 = fieldWeight in 5732, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5732)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Recent technological developments have increased the use of machine learning to solve many problems, including many in information retrieval. Multimedia information retrieval as a problem represents a significant challenge to machine learning as a technological solution, but some problems can still be addressed by using appropriate AI techniques. We review the technological developments and provide a perspective on the use of machine learning in conjunction with knowledge organization to address multimedia IR needs. The semantic gap in multimedia IR remains a significant problem in the field, and solutions to them are many years off. However, new technological developments allow the use of knowledge organization and machine learning in multimedia search systems and services. Specifically, we argue that, the improvement of detection of some classes of lowlevel features in images music and video can be used in conjunction with knowledge organization to tag or label multimedia content for better retrieval performance. We provide an overview of the use of knowledge organization schemes in machine learning and make recommendations to information professionals on the use of this technology with knowledge organization techniques to solve multimedia IR problems. We introduce a five-step process model that extracts features from multimedia objects (Step 1) from both knowledge organization (Step 1a) and machine learning (Step 1b), merging them together (Step 2) to create an index of those multimedia objects (Step 3). We also overview further steps in creating an application to utilize the multimedia objects (Step 4) and maintaining and updating the database of features on those objects (Step 5).

0.041034535 = product of:
  0.10258634 = sum of:
    0.045038395 = weight(_text_:21 in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045038395 = score(doc=5996,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.20536566 = fieldWeight in 5996, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5996)
    0.05754794 = weight(_text_:22 in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05754794 = score(doc=5996,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5996, 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=5996)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

6.10.2020 21:22:33

0.041034535 = product of:
  0.10258634 = sum of:
    0.045038395 = weight(_text_:21 in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045038395 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.20536566 = fieldWeight in 915, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=915)
    0.05754794 = weight(_text_:22 in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05754794 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 915, 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=915)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

21. 3.2023 19:22:29

0.041034535 = product of:
  0.10258634 = sum of:
    0.045038395 = weight(_text_:21 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045038395 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.20536566 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
    0.05754794 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05754794 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 918, 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=918)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

21. 3.2023 19:22:14

0.038270783 = product of:
  0.19135392 = sum of:
    0.19135392 = weight(_text_:objects in 1136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19135392 = score(doc=1136,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.508563 = fieldWeight in 1136, 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=1136)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The paper examines the integration of born-digital and digitized content into an outdated classification system within the Museum of European Cultures in Berlin. It underscores the predicament encountered by smaller to medium-sized cultural institutions as they navigate between adhering to established knowl­edge management systems and preserving an expanding array of contemporary cultural artifacts. The perspective of infrastructure studies is employed to scrutinize the representation of diverse viewpoints and voices within the museum's collections. The study delves into museum personnel's challenges in cataloging and classifying ethnographic objects utilizing a numerical-alphabetical categorization scheme from the 1930s. It presents an analysis of the limitations inherent in this method, along with its implications for the assimilation of emerging forms of born-digital and digitized objects. Through an exploration of the case of category 74, as observed at the Museum of European Cultures, the study illustrates the complexities of replacing pre-existing systems due to their intricate integration into the socio-technical components of the museum's information infrastructure. The paper reflects on how resource-constrained cultural institutions can take a proactive and ethical approach to knowl­edge management, re-evaluating their knowl­edge infrastructure to promote inclusion and ensure adaptability.

0.037497558 = product of:
  0.18748778 = sum of:
    0.18748778 = weight(_text_:objects in 5483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18748778 = score(doc=5483,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.49828792 = fieldWeight in 5483, 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=5483)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

We present an overview of Nomenclature's history, characteristics, structure, use, management, development process, limitations, and future. Nomenclature for Museum Cataloging is a bilingual (English/French) structured and controlled list of object terms organized in a classification system to provide a basis for indexing and cataloging collections of human-made objects. It includes illustrations and bibliographic references as well as a user guide. It is used in the creation and management of object records in human history collections within museums and other organizations, and it focuses on objects relevant to North American history and culture. First published in 1978, Nomenclature is the most extensively used museum classification and controlled vocabulary for historical and ethnological collections in North America and represents thereby a de facto standard in the field. An online reference version of Nomenclature was made available in 2018, and it will be available under open license in 2020.

0.037497558 = product of:
  0.18748778 = sum of:
    0.18748778 = weight(_text_:objects in 487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18748778 = score(doc=487,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.49828792 = fieldWeight in 487, 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=487)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In information science, writing, printing, telecommunication, and digital computing have been central concerns because of their ability to distribute information. Overlooked is the obvious fact that these technologies fashion copies, and the theorizing of copies has been neglected. We may think a copy is the same as what it copies, but no two objects can really be the same. "The same" means similar enough as an acceptable substitute for some purpose. The differences between usefully similar things are also often important, in forensic analysis, for example, or inferential processes. Status as a copy is only one form of relationship between objects, but copies are so integral to information science that they demand a theory. Indeed, theorizing copies provides a basis for a more complete and unified view of information science.

0.037497558 = product of:
  0.18748778 = sum of:
    0.18748778 = weight(_text_:objects in 981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18748778 = score(doc=981,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.49828792 = fieldWeight in 981, 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=981)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In the blooming area of Internet technology, the concept of Internet-of-Things (IoT) holds a distinct position that interconnects a large number of smart objects. In the context of social IoT (SIoT), the argument of trust and reliability is evaluated in the presented work. The proposed framework is divided into two blocks, namely Verification Block (VB) and Evaluation Block (EB). VB defines various ontology-based relationships computed for the objects that reflect the security and trustworthiness of an accessed service. While, EB is used for the feedback analysis and proves to be a valuable step that computes and governs the success rate of the service. Support vector machine (SVM) is applied to categorise the trust-based evaluation. The security aspect of the proposed approach is comparatively evaluated for DDoS and malware attacks in terms of success rate, trustworthiness and execution time. The proposed secure ontology-based framework provides better performance compared with existing architectures.

0.03419545 = product of:
  0.08548862 = sum of:
    0.037531994 = weight(_text_:21 in 5839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037531994 = score(doc=5839,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.17113805 = fieldWeight in 5839, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5839)
    0.04795662 = weight(_text_:22 in 5839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04795662 = score(doc=5839,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5839, 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=5839)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

30. 4.2020 21:03:22

0.03419545 = product of:
  0.08548862 = sum of:
    0.037531994 = weight(_text_:21 in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037531994 = score(doc=5843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.17113805 = fieldWeight in 5843, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5843)
    0.04795662 = weight(_text_:22 in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04795662 = score(doc=5843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5843, 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=5843)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22
2. 5.2020 17:21:06

0.03419545 = product of:
  0.08548862 = sum of:
    0.037531994 = weight(_text_:21 in 173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037531994 = score(doc=173,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.17113805 = fieldWeight in 173, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=173)
    0.04795662 = weight(_text_:22 in 173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04795662 = score(doc=173,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 173, 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=173)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a theoretical framework to illustrate the archival knowledge applied by archivists in their personal archiving (PA) and the mechanism of the application of archival knowledge in their PA. Design/methodology/approach The grounded theory methodology was adopted. For data collection, in-depth interviews were conducted with 21 archivists in China. Data analysis was performed using the open coding, axial coding and selective coding to organise the archival knowledge composition of PA and develops the awareness-knowledge-action (AKA) integration model of archival knowledge application in the field of PA, according to the principles of the grounded theory. Findings The archival knowledge involved in the field of PA comprises four principal categories: documentation, arrangement, preservation and appraisal. Three interactive factors involved in archivists' archival knowledge application in the field of PA behaviour: awareness, knowledge and action, which form a pattern of awareness leading, knowledge guidance and action innovation, and archivists' PA practice is flexible and innovative. The paper underscored that it is need to improve archival literacy among general public. Originality/value The study constructs a theoretical framework to identify the specialised archival knowledge and skills of PA which is able to provide solutions for non-specialist PA and develops an AKA model to explain the interaction relationships between awareness, knowledge and action in the field of PA.

Date

22. 1.2021 14:20:27