Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.014742712 = product of:
  0.029485423 = sum of:
    0.029485423 = product of:
      0.044228133 = sum of:
        0.022697764 = weight(_text_:p in 2668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022697764 = score(doc=2668,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1632485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0454034 = queryNorm
            0.13903812 = fieldWeight in 2668, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2668)
        0.02153037 = weight(_text_:22 in 2668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02153037 = score(doc=2668,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15899497 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0454034 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2668, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2668)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Carol Jean Godby, Devon Smith, Eric Childress: Encoding Application Profiles in a Computational Model of the Crosswalk. - Maria Elisabete Catarino, Ana Alice Baptista: Relating Folksonomies with Dublin Core. - Ed Summers, Antoine Isaac, Clay Redding, Dan Krech: LCSH, SKOS and Linked Data. - Xia Lin, Jiexun Li, Xiaohua Zhou: Theme Creation for Digital Collections. - Boris Lauser, Gudrun Johannsen, Caterina Caracciolo, Willem Robert van Hage, Johannes Keizer, Philipp Mayr: Comparing Human and Automatic Thesaurus Mapping Approaches in the Agricultural Domain. - P. Bryan Heidorn, Qin Wei: Automatic Metadata Extraction From Museum Specimen Labels. - Stuart Allen Sutton, Diny Golder: Achievement Standards Network (ASN): An Application Profile for Mapping K-12 Educational Resources to Achievement Standards. - Allen H. Renear, Karen M. Wickett, Richard J. Urban, David Dubin, Sarah L. Shreeves: Collection/Item Metadata Relationships. - Seth van Hooland, Yves Bontemps, Seth Kaufman: Answering the Call for more Accountability: Applying Data Profiling to Museum Metadata. - Thomas Margaritopoulos, Merkourios Margaritopoulos, Ioannis Mavridis, Athanasios Manitsaris: A Conceptual Framework for Metadata Quality Assessment. - Miao Chen, Xiaozhong Liu, Jian Qin: Semantic Relation Extraction from Socially-Generated Tags: A Methodology for Metadata Generation. - Hak Lae Kim, Simon Scerri, John G. Breslin, Stefan Decker, Hong Gee Kim: The State of the Art in Tag Ontologies: A Semantic Model for Tagging and Folksonomies. - Martin Malmsten: Making a Library Catalogue Part of the Semantic Web. - Philipp Mayr, Vivien Petras: Building a Terminology Network for Search: The KoMoHe Project. - Michael Panzer: Cool URIs for the DDC: Towards Web-scale Accessibility of a Large Classification System. - Barbara Levergood, Stefan Farrenkopf, Elisabeth Frasnelli: The Specification of the Language of the Field and Interoperability: Cross-language Access to Catalogues and Online Libraries (CACAO)

0.0017951105 = product of:
  0.003590221 = sum of:
    0.003590221 = product of:
      0.010770663 = sum of:
        0.010770663 = weight(_text_:e in 348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010770663 = score(doc=348,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06526148 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0454034 = queryNorm
            0.16503859 = fieldWeight in 348, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=348)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of library automation 13(1980) S.289-290 (E. Svenonius)

Language

e

0.0017273457 = product of:
  0.0034546915 = sum of:
    0.0034546915 = product of:
      0.010364074 = sum of:
        0.010364074 = weight(_text_:e in 3021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010364074 = score(doc=3021,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06526148 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0454034 = queryNorm
            0.15880844 = fieldWeight in 3021, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3021)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Language

e

0.001709985 = product of:
  0.00341997 = sum of:
    0.00341997 = product of:
      0.01025991 = sum of:
        0.01025991 = weight(_text_:e in 212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01025991 = score(doc=212,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06526148 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0454034 = queryNorm
            0.15721233 = fieldWeight in 212, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=212)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Classification

All E 87 / Register

SBB

All E 87 / Register

0.0013818766 = product of:
  0.0027637533 = sum of:
    0.0027637533 = product of:
      0.008291259 = sum of:
        0.008291259 = weight(_text_:e in 319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008291259 = score(doc=319,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06526148 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0454034 = queryNorm
            0.12704675 = fieldWeight in 319, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=319)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: ABI-Technik 12(1992) Nr.4, S.387-388 (H. Nohr); Knowledge organization 21(1994) no.2, S.107-108 (E. Oeser)

7.479626E-4 = product of:
  0.0014959252 = sum of:
    0.0014959252 = product of:
      0.0044877757 = sum of:
        0.0044877757 = weight(_text_:e in 2487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0044877757 = score(doc=2487,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06526148 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0454034 = queryNorm
            0.06876607 = fieldWeight in 2487, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2487)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Classification

AAL (E)

Footnote

Das ist deshalb bedauerlich, weil die für das Internet charakteristische Dezentralisierung der bibliographischen Informationsströme gerade durch Dienste wie CiteULike einen erheblichen Popularitäts- aber auch Forschungs- und Entwicklungsschub erfahren hat. Man betrachte nur die Flut der fachlichen Veröffentlichungen über bibliographische Social-Bookmarking-Dienste in den fachlichen Repositories DUST und E-LIS sowie in den anglophonen Fachzeitschriften seit etwa 2004. Einige mit diesen Diensten zusammenhängende Themen werden von Wissen durchaus berührt. Er findet zum Beispiel mit den Experten heraus, dass das Semantic Web Bestandteil des medio- bzw. wikigraphischen Portals sein müsse (S. 203). Aber die bloße Nennung des Semantic Web lässt nichts von den Spannungen ahnen, die es für das soziale Verhältnis von Zentrum und Peripherie der bibliographischen Information birgt, wenn die partizipativen Strukturen des Web 2.0 und das Semantic Web zusammenkommen. Web 2.0-typische Webservices kombiniert mit den Normdateien der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek würden etwa bedeuten, dass jeder, überall, auch in einem Dienst wie CiteULike, in Wikisource oder in einem eigenen Weblog, Verknüpfungen zu einem Schlagwort erzeugen kann. Ohne also abzuwarten, ob ihm im Jahr 2015 in einem zentralen Portal der traditionellen bibliographischen Diensteanbieter eine >Mitmach-Schicht< zugewiesen wird, in der er dann ein wenig miterschließen darf. Der Autor gibt in seinem Resümee zu erkennen, dass er durchaus um die Eigendynamik seines Gegenstands und die Eigenwilligkeit der Benutzer weiß (S.326f.). Ob das auch für die interviewten Sprecher dieses Delphi-Orakels der bibliographischen Zukunft gilt, muss nach der Lektüre des Buchs allerdings dahingestellt bleiben."

GHBS

AAL (E)

6.1070896E-4 = product of:
  0.0012214179 = sum of:
    0.0012214179 = product of:
      0.0036642535 = sum of:
        0.0036642535 = weight(_text_:e in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0036642535 = score(doc=3054,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06526148 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0454034 = queryNorm
            0.056147262 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

- Theoretische Ansätze und empirische Untersuchungen Stefanie Panke & Birgit Gaiser: "With my head up in the clouds" - Social Tagging aus Nutzersicht Christoph Held& Ulrike Cress: Social Tagging aus kognitionspsychologischer Sicht Michael Derntl, Thorsten Hampel, Renate Motschnig & Tomas Pitner: Social Tagging und Inclusive Universal Access - Einsatz von Tagging in Hochschulen und Bibliotheken Christian Hänger: Good tags or bad tags? Tagging im Kontext der bibliothekarischen Sacherschließung Mandy Schiefner: Social Tagging in der universitären Lehre Michael Blank, Thomas Bopp, Thorsten Hampel & Jonas Schulte: Social Tagging = Soziale Suche? Andreas Harrer & Steffen Lohmann: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse Harald Sack & Jörg Waitelonis: Zeitbezogene kollaborative Annotation zur Verbesserung der inhaltsbasierten Videosuche - Kommerzielle Anwendungen von Tagging Karl Tschetschonig, Roland Ladengruber, Thorsten Hampel & Jonas Schulte: Kollaborative Tagging-Systeme im Electronic Commerce Tilman Küchler, Jan M. Pawlowski & Volker Zimmermann: Social Tagging and Open Content: A Concept for the Future of E-Learning and Knowledge Management? Stephan Schillenvein: Der .Business Case' für die Nutzung von Social Tagging in Intranets und internen Informationssystemen