Search (301 results, page 1 of 16)

0.10388878 = sum of:
  0.07129928 = product of:
    0.2851971 = sum of:
      0.2851971 = weight(_text_:3a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2851971 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38058892 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044891298 = queryNorm
          0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0325895 = product of:
    0.09776849 = sum of:
      0.09776849 = weight(_text_:i in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09776849 = score(doc=230,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044891298 = queryNorm
          0.57742584 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this lecture I intend to challenge those who uphold a monist or even a dualist view of the universe; and I will propose, instead, a pluralist view. I will propose a view of the universe that recognizes at least three different but interacting sub-universes.

Source

https%3A%2F%2Ftannerlectures.utah.edu%2F_documents%2Fa-to-z%2Fp%2Fpopper80.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3f4QRTEH-OEBmoYr2J_c7H

0.047934234 = product of:
  0.09586847 = sum of:
    0.09586847 = product of:
      0.1438027 = sum of:
        0.07081689 = weight(_text_:c in 1266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07081689 = score(doc=1266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.45733082 = fieldWeight in 1266, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1266)
        0.07298581 = weight(_text_:22 in 1266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07298581 = score(doc=1266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1266, 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=1266)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  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".

0.044562053 = product of:
  0.089124106 = sum of:
    0.089124106 = product of:
      0.35649642 = sum of:
        0.35649642 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.35649642 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38058892 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.043190803 = product of:
  0.08638161 = sum of:
    0.08638161 = product of:
      0.1295724 = sum of:
        0.07055833 = weight(_text_:i in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07055833 = score(doc=3290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.41672117 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
        0.05901407 = weight(_text_:c in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05901407 = score(doc=3290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.381109 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

"In this essay, I offer several significant examples of research that deal with animals' and children's perception. These examples come from social science, cognitive thology, and several camps in cognitive science"

0.04094898 = product of:
  0.08189796 = sum of:
    0.08189796 = product of:
      0.12284694 = sum of:
        0.093339905 = weight(_text_:i in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.093339905 = score(doc=1265,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.55127037 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
        0.029507035 = weight(_text_:c in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029507035 = score(doc=1265,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Today I want to talk about categorization, and I want to convince you that a lot of what we think we know about categorization is wrong. In particular, I want to convince you that many of the ways we're attempting to apply categorization to the electronic world are actually a bad fit, because we've adopted habits of mind that are left over from earlier strategies. I also want to convince you that what we're seeing when we see the Web is actually a radical break with previous categorization strategies, rather than an extension of them. The second part of the talk is more speculative, because it is often the case that old systems get broken before people know what's going to take their place. (Anyone watching the music industry can see this at work today.) That's what I think is happening with categorization. What I think is coming instead are much more organic ways of organizing information than our current categorization schemes allow, based on two units -- the link, which can point to anything, and the tag, which is a way of attaching labels to links. The strategy of tagging -- free-form labeling, without regard to categorical constraints -- seems like a recipe for disaster, but as the Web has shown us, you can extract a surprising amount of value from big messy data sets.

Footnote

This piece is based on two talks I gave in the spring of 2005 -- one at the O'Reilly ETech conference in March, entitled "Ontology Is Overrated", and one at the IMCExpo in April entitled "Folksonomies & Tags: The rise of user-developed classification." The written version is a heavily edited concatenation of those two talks.

0.039945196 = product of:
  0.07989039 = sum of:
    0.07989039 = product of:
      0.119835585 = sum of:
        0.05901407 = weight(_text_:c in 5865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05901407 = score(doc=5865,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.381109 = fieldWeight in 5865, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5865)
        0.060821515 = weight(_text_:22 in 5865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060821515 = score(doc=5865,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5865, 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=5865)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2017 12:51:57

0.035560213 = product of:
  0.071120426 = sum of:
    0.071120426 = product of:
      0.10668063 = sum of:
        0.039913822 = weight(_text_:i in 4560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039913822 = score(doc=4560,freq=1.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.2357331 = fieldWeight in 4560, product of:
              1.0 = tf(freq=1.0), with freq of:
                1.0 = termFreq=1.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4560)
        0.066766806 = weight(_text_:c in 4560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.066766806 = score(doc=4560,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.43117565 = fieldWeight in 4560, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4560)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Erwiderung auf die Rezension von John Searle zu: Koch, C.: Consciousness: confessions of a romantic reductionist. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press 2012 in:The New York Review of Books, 10.01.2013 [https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/03/07/can-photodiode-be-conscious/?pagination=false&printpage=true]

0.035400786 = product of:
  0.07080157 = sum of:
    0.07080157 = product of:
      0.10620236 = sum of:
        0.08554743 = weight(_text_:i in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08554743 = score(doc=1077,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.5052476 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
        0.020654924 = weight(_text_:c in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020654924 = score(doc=1077,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.13338815 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

My thesis discusses two related problems that have taken center stage in the recent literature on concepts: 1) What are the individuation conditions of concepts? Under what conditions is a concept Cv(1) the same concept as a concept Cv(2)? 2) What are the possession conditions of concepts? What conditions must be satisfied for a thinker to have a concept C? The thesis defends a novel account of concepts, which I call "pluralist-contextualist": 1) Pluralism: Different concepts have different kinds of individuation and possession conditions: some concepts are individuated more "coarsely", have less demanding possession conditions and are widely shared, while other concepts are individuated more "finely" and not shared. 2) Contextualism: When a speaker ascribes a propositional attitude to a subject S, or uses his ascription to explain/predict S's behavior, the speaker's intentions in the relevant context determine the correct individuation conditions for the concepts involved in his report. In chapters 1-3 I defend a contextualist, non-Millian theory of propositional attitude ascriptions. Then, I show how contextualism can be used to offer a novel perspective on the problem of concept individuation/possession. More specifically, I employ contextualism to provide a new, more effective argument for Fodor's "publicity principle": if contextualism is true, then certain specific concepts must be shared in order for interpersonally applicable psychological generalizations to be possible. In chapters 4-5 I raise a tension between publicity and another widely endorsed principle, the "Fregean constraint" (FC): subjects who are unaware of certain identity facts and find themselves in so-called "Frege cases" must have distinct concepts for the relevant object x. For instance: the ancient astronomers had distinct concepts (HESPERUS/PHOSPHORUS) for the same object (the planet Venus). First, I examine some leading theories of concepts and argue that they cannot meet both of our constraints at the same time. Then, I offer principled reasons to think that no theory can satisfy (FC) while also respecting publicity. (FC) appears to require a form of holism, on which a concept is individuated by its global inferential role in a subject S and can thus only be shared by someone who has exactly the same inferential dispositions as S. This explains the tension between publicity and (FC), since holism is clearly incompatible with concept shareability. To solve the tension, I suggest adopting my pluralist-contextualist proposal: concepts involved in Frege cases are holistically individuated and not public, while other concepts are more coarsely individuated and widely shared; given this "plurality" of concepts, we will then need contextual factors (speakers' intentions) to "select" the specific concepts to be employed in our intentional generalizations in the relevant contexts. In chapter 6 I develop the view further by contrasting it with some rival accounts. First, I examine a very different kind of pluralism about concepts, which has been recently defended by Daniel Weiskopf, and argue that it is insufficiently radical. Then, I consider the inferentialist accounts defended by authors like Peacocke, Rey and Jackson. Such views, I argue, are committed to an implausible picture of reference determination, on which our inferential dispositions fix the reference of our concepts: this leads to wrong predictions in all those cases of scientific disagreement where two parties have very different inferential dispositions and yet seem to refer to the same natural kind.

0.03455264 = product of:
  0.06910528 = sum of:
    0.06910528 = product of:
      0.10365792 = sum of:
        0.056446664 = weight(_text_:i in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056446664 = score(doc=1216,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 1216, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1216)
        0.04721126 = weight(_text_:c in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04721126 = score(doc=1216,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.3048872 = fieldWeight in 1216, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1216)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Australian library review 11(1994) no.3, S.370 (C. Sturt); Cataloging and classification quarterly 19(1994) no.2, S.99-105 (J.J. Boll); Technical services quarterly 12(1994) no.2, S.95-97; Knowledge organization 24(1997) no.4, S.158-159 (I. Dahlberg)

0.031759724 = product of:
  0.06351945 = sum of:
    0.06351945 = product of:
      0.09527917 = sum of:
        0.05987073 = weight(_text_:i in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05987073 = score(doc=761,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.35359967 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
        0.035408445 = weight(_text_:c in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035408445 = score(doc=761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper, I have traced a series of evolutionary adaptations of FOL motivated entirely by its use by knowledge engineers to represent and share information on the Web culminating in the development of Common Logic. While the primary goal in this paper has been to document this evolution, it is arguable, I think that CL's syntactic and semantic egalitarianism better realizes the goal "topic neutrality" that a logic should ideally exemplify - understood, at least in part, as the idea that logic should as far as possible not itself embody any metaphysical presuppositions. Instead of retaining the traditional metaphysical divisions of FOL that reflect its Fregean origins, CL begins as it were with a single, metaphysically homogeneous domain in which, potentially, anything can play the traditional roles of object, property, relation, and function. Note that the effect of this is not to destroy traditional metaphysical divisions. Rather, it simply to refrain from building those divisions explicitly into one's logic; instead, such divisions are left to the user to introduce and enforce axiomatically in an explicit metaphysical theory.

0.030803367 = product of:
  0.061606735 = sum of:
    0.061606735 = product of:
      0.0924101 = sum of:
        0.042335 = weight(_text_:i in 3102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042335 = score(doc=3102,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 3102, 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=3102)
        0.050075103 = weight(_text_:c in 3102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050075103 = score(doc=3102,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.32338172 = fieldWeight in 3102, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3102)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Location

I

0.030655298 = product of:
  0.061310597 = sum of:
    0.061310597 = product of:
      0.09196589 = sum of:
        0.049390834 = weight(_text_:i in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049390834 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 40, 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=40)
        0.042575058 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042575058 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, 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=40)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.

Date

17.11.2020 12:22:59

0.02591448 = product of:
  0.05182896 = sum of:
    0.05182896 = product of:
      0.07774344 = sum of:
        0.042335 = weight(_text_:i in 3195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042335 = score(doc=3195,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 3195, 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=3195)
        0.035408445 = weight(_text_:c in 3195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035408445 = score(doc=3195,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 3195, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3195)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.02591448 = product of:
  0.05182896 = sum of:
    0.05182896 = product of:
      0.07774344 = sum of:
        0.042335 = weight(_text_:i in 4105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042335 = score(doc=4105,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 4105, 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=4105)
        0.035408445 = weight(_text_:c in 4105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035408445 = score(doc=4105,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 4105, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4105)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Drawings of The Florentine Painters project created the first online database of Florentine Renaissance drawings by applying Linked Open Data (LOD) techniques to a foundational text of the same name, first published by Bernard Berenson in 1903 (revised and expanded editions, 1938 and 1961). The goal was to make Berenson's catalog information-still an essential information resource today-available in a machine-readable format, allowing researchers to access the source content through open data services. This paper provides a technical overview of the methods and processes applied in the conversion of Berenson's catalog to LOD using the CIDOC-CRM ontology; it also discusses the different phases of the project, focusing on the challenges and issues of data transformation and publishing. The project was funded by the Samuel H. Kress Foundation and organized by Villa I Tatti, The Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies. Catalog: http://florentinedrawings.itatti.harvard.edu. Data Endpoint: http://data.itatti.harvard.edu.

0.023036495 = product of:
  0.04607299 = sum of:
    0.04607299 = product of:
      0.069109485 = sum of:
        0.028223332 = weight(_text_:i in 872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028223332 = score(doc=872,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 872, 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=872)
        0.040886153 = weight(_text_:c in 872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040886153 = score(doc=872,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.26404008 = fieldWeight in 872, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=872)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.021896642 = product of:
  0.043793283 = sum of:
    0.043793283 = product of:
      0.06568992 = sum of:
        0.035279166 = weight(_text_:i in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035279166 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
        0.030410757 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030410757 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

More and more users index everything on their own in the web 2.0. There are services for links, videos, pictures, books, encyclopaedic articles and scientific articles. All these services are library independent. But must that really be? Can't libraries help with their experience and tools to make user indexing better? On the experience of a project from German language Wikipedia together with the German person authority files (Personen Namen Datei - PND) located at German National Library (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek) I would like to show what is possible. How users can and will use the authority files, if we let them. We will take a look how the project worked and what we can learn for future projects. Conclusions - Authority files can have a role in the web 2.0 - there must be an open interface/ service for retrieval - everything that is indexed on the net with authority files can be easy integrated in a federated search - O'Reilly: You have to found ways that your data get more important that more it will be used

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".

0.019972598 = product of:
  0.039945196 = sum of:
    0.039945196 = product of:
      0.059917793 = sum of:
        0.029507035 = weight(_text_:c in 2565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029507035 = score(doc=2565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 2565, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2565)
        0.030410757 = weight(_text_:22 in 2565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030410757 = score(doc=2565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2565, 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=2565)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

16. 1.2016 10:22:28

0.019972598 = product of:
  0.039945196 = sum of:
    0.039945196 = product of:
      0.059917793 = sum of:
        0.029507035 = weight(_text_:c in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029507035 = score(doc=4550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 4550, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4550)
        0.030410757 = weight(_text_:22 in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030410757 = score(doc=4550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4550, 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=4550)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10.11.2018 16:27:22

0.019956911 = product of:
  0.039913822 = sum of:
    0.039913822 = product of:
      0.11974146 = sum of:
        0.11974146 = weight(_text_:i in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11974146 = score(doc=5013,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.70719934 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

i

0.019501295 = product of:
  0.03900259 = sum of:
    0.03900259 = product of:
      0.11700776 = sum of:
        0.11700776 = weight(_text_:i in 1234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11700776 = score(doc=1234,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.6910539 = fieldWeight in 1234, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1234)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

I have become "brutally honest" of late, at least according to one listener who heard my remarks during a recent whistle stop speaking tour of publishing conventions. This comment caught me a little off guard. Not that I haven't always been frank, but I do try never to be brutal. The truth, I guess, can be painful, even if the intention of the teller is simply objectivity. This paper is based on a "brutally honest" talk I have been giving to publishers, first, in February, to the Association of American Publishers' Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division, at which point I was calling the piece, "The Illusion of Free Information." It was this initial rendition that led to the invitation to publish something here. Since then I've been working on the talk. I gave a second version of it in March to the assembly of the American Society of Information Dissemination Centers, where I called it, "When Sectors Clash: Public Access vs. Private Interest." And, most recently, I gave yet a third version of it to the governing board of the American Institute of Physics. This time I called it: "The Future of Society Publishing." The notion of free information, our government's proper role in distributing free information, and the future of scholarly publishing in a world of free information . . . these are the issues that are floating around in my head. My goal here is to tell you where my thinking is only at this moment, for I reserve the right to continue thinking and developing new permutations on this mentally challenging theme.