Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02659677 = product of:
  0.05319354 = sum of:
    0.05319354 = sum of:
      0.02856791 = weight(_text_:i in 2659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02856791 = score(doc=2659,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 2659, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2659)
      0.024625631 = weight(_text_:22 in 2659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024625631 = score(doc=2659,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2659, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2659)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) has been developed over the course of more than a century, predating the semantic web by some time. Until the 1986, the only concept-toconcept relationship available was an undifferentiated "See Also" reference, which was used for both associative (RT) and hierarchical (BT/NT) connections. In that year, in preparation for the first release of the headings in machine readable MARC Authorities form, an attempt was made to automatically convert these "See Also" links into the standardized thesaural relations. Unfortunately, the rule used to determine the type of reference to generate relied on the presence of symmetric links to detect associatively related terms; "See Also" references that were only present in one of the related terms were assumed to be hierarchical. This left the process vulnerable to inconsistent use of references in the pre-conversion data, with a marked bias towards promoting relationships to hierarchical status. The Library of Congress was aware that the results of the conversion contained many inconsistencies, and intended to validate and correct the results over the course of time. Unfortunately, twenty years later, less than 40% of the converted records have been evaluated. The converted records, being the earliest encountered during the Library's cataloging activities, represent the most basic concepts within LCSH; errors in the syndetic structure for these records affect far more subordinate concepts than those nearer the periphery. Worse, a policy of patterning new headings after pre-existing ones leads to structural errors arising from the conversion process being replicated in these newer headings, perpetuating and exacerbating the errors. As the LCSH prepares for its second great conversion, from MARC to SKOS, it is critical to address these structural problems. As part of the work on converting the headings into SKOS, I have experimented with different visualizations of the tangled web of broader terms embedded in LCSH. This poster illustrates several of these renderings, shows how they can help users to judge which relationships might not be correct, and shows just exactly how Doorbells and Mammals are related.

Source

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

0.01539102 = product of:
  0.03078204 = sum of:
    0.03078204 = product of:
      0.06156408 = sum of:
        0.06156408 = weight(_text_:22 in 3406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06156408 = score(doc=3406,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3406, 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=3406)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 5.2010 16:22:35

0.012625352 = product of:
  0.025250703 = sum of:
    0.025250703 = product of:
      0.050501406 = sum of:
        0.050501406 = weight(_text_:i in 3285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050501406 = score(doc=3285,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.29466638 = fieldWeight in 3285, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3285)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This book is the outcome of the Dagstuhl Seminar on "Information Visualization - Human-Centered Issues in Visual Representation, Interaction, and Evaluation" held at Dagstuhl Castle, Germany, from May 28 to June 1, 2007. Information Visualization (InfoVis) is a relatively new research area, which focuses on the use of visualization techniques to help people understand and analyze data.This book documents and extends the findings and discussions of the various sessions in detail. The seven contributions cover the most important topics: Part I is on general reflections on the value of information visualization; evaluating information visualizations; theoretical foundations of information visualization; teaching information visualization. Part II deals with specific aspects on creation and collaboration: engaging new audiences for information visualization; process and pitfalls in writing information visualization research papers; and visual analytics: definition, process, and challenges.

Content

Inhalt: Part I. General Reflections The Value of Information Visualization / Jean-Daniel Fekete, Jarke J van Wijk, John T. Stasko, Chris North Evaluating Information Visualizations / Sheelagh Carpendale Theoretical Foundations of Information Visualization / Helen C. Purchase, Natalia Andrienko, T.J. Jankun-Kelly, Matthew Ward Teaching Information Visualization / Andreas Kerren, John T. Stasko, Jason Dykes Part II. Specific Aspects Creation and Collaboration: Engaging New Audiences for Information Visualization / Jeffrey Heer, Frank van Ham, Sheelagh Carpendale, Chris Weaver, Petra Isenberg Process and Pitfalls in Writing Information Visualization Research Papers / Tamara Munzner Visual Analytics: Definition, Process, and Challenges / Daniel Keim, Gennady Andrienko, Jean-Daniel Fekete, Carsten Görg, Jörn Kohlhammer, Guy Melancon

0.012498461 = product of:
  0.024996921 = sum of:
    0.024996921 = product of:
      0.049993843 = sum of:
        0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049993843 = score(doc=232,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 232, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=232)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper examines some traditional information searching methods and their role in Hungarian OPACs. What challenges are there in the digital and online environment? How do users work with them and do they give users satisfactory results? What kinds of techniques are users employing? In this paper I examine the user interfaces of UDC, thesauri, subject headings etc. in the Hungarian library. The key question of the paper is whether a universal system or local solutions is the best approach for searching in the digital environment.

0.010773714 = product of:
  0.021547427 = sum of:
    0.021547427 = product of:
      0.043094855 = sum of:
        0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 2500) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043094855 = score(doc=2500,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2500, 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=2500)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 1.2007 18:22:41

0.010712966 = product of:
  0.021425933 = sum of:
    0.021425933 = product of:
      0.042851865 = sum of:
        0.042851865 = weight(_text_:i in 4991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042851865 = score(doc=4991,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 4991, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4991)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Je mehr Informationen gleichzeitig, übersichtlich dargestellt und überwacht werden können, desto höher wird der Informations-Nutzen für einen Besucher oder potentiellen Kunden von ihnen sein. Da wir in einer Zeit der Informationsüberflutung leben, hilft uns das Information-Panel in Zukunft als multimediales Informationssystem. Ein Interface ist in unserem heutigen multimedialen Umfeld ein Bestandteil eines Systems, das dem Austausch von Informationen dient. Durch Information-Panels (sog. I-Panels) kann der Mensch mit Geräten interagieren, indem er sich wahlweise die für ihn masßgeschneiderten Informationen darstellen lässt. Für den Interface-Theoretiker Artur P. Schmidt können Information-Panels heute als eine Art Enzyklopädie für Informationen und Nachrichten aller Art dienen, wie sein Internet-Projekt "Der Wissensnavigator" belegt. Das Vorbild für multimediale Panels ist die geordnete Verbindung von Inhalten. Das Information-Panel als MenschMaschine-Interface kann zum "Punkt der Begegnung" oder "Kopplung zwischen zwei oder mehr Systemen" werden. Es übernimmt eine Übersetzung- und Vermittlungsfunktion.

0.010712966 = product of:
  0.021425933 = sum of:
    0.021425933 = product of:
      0.042851865 = sum of:
        0.042851865 = weight(_text_:i in 5911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042851865 = score(doc=5911,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 5911, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5911)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.009234612 = product of:
  0.018469224 = sum of:
    0.018469224 = product of:
      0.036938448 = sum of:
        0.036938448 = weight(_text_:22 in 1289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036938448 = score(doc=1289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1289, 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=1289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.009234612 = product of:
  0.018469224 = sum of:
    0.018469224 = product of:
      0.036938448 = sum of:
        0.036938448 = weight(_text_:22 in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036938448 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1781, 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=1781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2008 14:35:21

0.00769551 = product of:
  0.01539102 = sum of:
    0.01539102 = product of:
      0.03078204 = sum of:
        0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 1397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03078204 = score(doc=1397,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1397, 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=1397)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2008 14:29:25

0.00769551 = product of:
  0.01539102 = sum of:
    0.01539102 = product of:
      0.03078204 = sum of:
        0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03078204 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 16:11:05

0.0071419775 = product of:
  0.014283955 = sum of:
    0.014283955 = product of:
      0.02856791 = sum of:
        0.02856791 = weight(_text_:i in 6043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02856791 = score(doc=6043,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 6043, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6043)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

I-Views

0.005356483 = product of:
  0.010712966 = sum of:
    0.010712966 = product of:
      0.021425933 = sum of:
        0.021425933 = weight(_text_:i in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021425933 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.12501636 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

But what happens to this awareness in a digital library? Can discursive formations be represented in cyberspace, perhaps through diagrams in a visualization interface? And would such a schema be helpful to a digital library user? To approach this question, it is worth taking a moment to reconsider what Radford is looking at. First, he looks at titles to see how the books cluster. To illustrate, I scanned one hundred books on the shelves of a college library under subclass HT 101-395, defined by the LCC subclass caption as Urban groups. The City. Urban sociology. Of the first 100 titles in this sequence, fifty included the word "urban" or variants (e.g. "urbanization"). Another thirty-five used the word "city" or variants. These keywords appear to mark their titles as the heart of this discursive formation. The scattering of titles not using "urban" or "city" used related terms such as "town," "community," or in one case "skyscrapers." So we immediately see some empirical correlation between keywords and classification. But we also see a problem with the commonly used search technique of title-keyword. A student interested in urban studies will want to know about this entire subclass, and may wish to browse every title available therein. A title-keyword search on "urban" will retrieve only half of the titles, while a search on "city" will retrieve just over a third. There will be no overlap, since no titles in this sample contain both words. The only place where both words appear in a common string is in the LCC subclass caption, but captions are not typically indexed in library Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs). In a traditional library, this problem is mitigated when the student goes to the shelf looking for any one of the books and suddenly discovers a much wider selection than the keyword search had led him to expect. But in a digital library, the issue of non-retrieval can be more problematic, as studies have indicated. Micco and Popp reported that, in a study funded partly by the U.S. Department of Education, 65 of 73 unskilled users searching for material on U.S./Soviet foreign relations found some material but never realized they had missed a large percentage of what was in the database.

0.005050141 = product of:
  0.010100282 = sum of:
    0.010100282 = product of:
      0.020200564 = sum of:
        0.020200564 = weight(_text_:i in 3884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020200564 = score(doc=3884,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.11786655 = fieldWeight in 3884, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3884)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 56(2005) no.10, S.1126-1128 (P.K. Nayar): "How Images Think is an exercise both in philosophical meditation and critical theorizing about media, images, affects, and cognition. Burnett combines the insights of neuroscience with theories of cognition and the computer sciences. He argues that contemporary metaphors - biological or mechanical - about either cognition, images, or computer intelligence severely limit our understanding of the image. He suggests in his introduction that "image" refers to the "complex set of interactions that constitute everyday life in image-worlds" (p. xviii). For Burnett the fact that increasing amounts of intelligence are being programmed into technologies and devices that use images as their main form of interaction and communication-computers, for instance-suggests that images are interfaces, structuring interaction, people, and the environment they share. New technologies are not simply extensions of human abilities and needs-they literally enlarge cultural and social preconceptions of the relationship between body and mind. The flow of information today is part of a continuum, with exceptional events standing as punctuation marks. This flow connects a variety of sources, some of which are continuous - available 24 hours - or "live" and radically alters issues of memory and history. Television and the Internet, notes Burnett, are not simply a simulated world-they are the world, and the distinctions between "natural" and "non-natural" have disappeared. Increasingly, we immerse ourselves in the image, as if we are there. We rarely become conscious of the fact that we are watching images of events-for all perceptioe, cognitive, and interpretive purposes, the image is the event for us. The proximity and distance of viewer from/with the viewed has altered so significantly that the screen is us. However, this is not to suggest that we are simply passive consumers of images. As Burnett points out, painstakingly, issues of creativity are involved in the process of visualization-viewwes generate what they see in the images. This involves the historical moment of viewing-such as viewing images of the WTC bombings-and the act of re-imagining. As Burnett puts it, "the questions about what is pictured and what is real have to do with vantage points [of the viewer] and not necessarily what is in the image" (p. 26). In his second chapter Burnett moves an to a discussion of "imagescapes." Analyzing the analogue-digital programming of images, Burnett uses the concept of "reverie" to describe the viewing experience. The reverie is a "giving in" to the viewing experience, a "state" in which conscious ("I am sitting down an this sofa to watch TV") and unconscious (pleasure, pain, anxiety) processes interact. Meaning emerges in the not-always easy or "clean" process of hybridization. This "enhances" the thinking process beyond the boundaries of either image or subject. Hybridization is the space of intelligence, exchange, and communication.
Burnett's work is a useful basic primer an the new media. One of the chief attractions here is his clear language, devoid of the jargon of either computer sciences or advanced critical theory. This makes How Images Think an accessible introduction to digital cultures. Burnett explores the impact of the new technologies an not just image-making but an image-effects, and the ways in which images constitute our ecologies of identity, communication, and subject-hood. While some of the sections seem a little too basic (especially where he speaks about the ways in which we constitute an object as an object of art, see above), especially in the wake of reception theory, it still remains a starting point for those interested in cultural studies of the new media. The Gase Burnett makes out for the transformation of the ways in which we look at images has been strengthened by his attention to the history of this transformation-from photography through television and cinema and now to immersive virtual reality systems. Joseph Koemer (2004) has pointed out that the iconoclasm of early modern Europe actually demonstrates how idolatory was integral to the image-breakers' core belief. As Koerner puts it, "images never go away ... they persist and function by being perpetually destroyed" (p. 12). Burnett, likewise, argues that images in new media are reformed to suit new contexts of meaning-production-even when they appear to be destroyed. Images are recast, and the degree of their realism (or fantasy) heightened or diminished-but they do not "go away." Images do think, but-if I can parse Burnett's entire work-they think with, through, and in human intelligence, emotions, and intuitions. Images are uncanny-they are both us and not-us, ours and not-ours. There is, surprisingly, one factual error. Burnett claims that Myron Kreuger pioneered the term "virtual reality." To the best of my knowledge, it was Jaron Lanier who did so (see Featherstone & Burrows, 1998 [1995], p. 5)."

0.0030782039 = product of:
  0.0061564078 = sum of:
    0.0061564078 = product of:
      0.0123128155 = sum of:
        0.0123128155 = weight(_text_:22 in 1789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0123128155 = score(doc=1789,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1789, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1789)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

23. 3.2008 19:10:22