Search (70 results, page 1 of 4)

0.1957683 = product of:
  0.3915366 = sum of:
    0.09788415 = product of:
      0.29365245 = sum of:
        0.29365245 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.29365245 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31349787 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.29365245 = weight(_text_:2f in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29365245 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31349787 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.09788415 = product of:
  0.1957683 = sum of:
    0.048942074 = product of:
      0.14682622 = sum of:
        0.14682622 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14682622 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31349787 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, 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=4388)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.14682622 = weight(_text_:2f in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14682622 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31349787 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, 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=4388)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Footnote

Vgl. unter: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizweHljdbcAhVS16QKHXcFD9QQFjABegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F271200105_Die_Autonomie_des_Menschen_und_der_Maschine_-_gegenwartige_Definitionen_von_Autonomie_zwischen_philosophischem_Hintergrund_und_technologischer_Umsetzbarkeit_Redigierte_Version_der_Magisterarbeit_Karls&usg=AOvVaw06orrdJmFF2xbCCp_hL26q.

0.039394744 = product of:
  0.07878949 = sum of:
    0.06876954 = weight(_text_:evolution in 4167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06876954 = score(doc=4167,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.35112026 = fieldWeight in 4167, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4167)
    0.010019952 = product of:
      0.030059857 = sum of:
        0.030059857 = weight(_text_:22 in 4167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030059857 = score(doc=4167,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4167, 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=4167)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

"Da gibt's im Gehirn nicht eine Trennung zwischen Rechenwerk und Programmspeicher und Datenspeicher oder so was, sondern es gibt nur Neurone und deren Verschaltung. Und die Art und Weise, wie die verschaltet sind, nennen wir funktionelle Architektur, und da liegen die ganzen Geheimnisse, denn die Freiheitsgrade sind überschaubar, es kann nur variiert werden, wer mit wem kommuniziert, wie stark oder schwach die Kopplungen sind und ob sie hemmend oder erregend sind, wobei die allermeisten erregend sind. Und mit diesem Lego-Baukasten hat die Evolution die Großhirnrinde zusammengebastelt."

Date

22. 2.2018 18:10:21

0.024313705 = product of:
  0.09725482 = sum of:
    0.09725482 = weight(_text_:evolution in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09725482 = score(doc=761,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.49655905 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.02292318 = product of:
  0.09169272 = sum of:
    0.09169272 = weight(_text_:evolution in 1563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09169272 = score(doc=1563,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.46816036 = fieldWeight in 1563, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1563)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The h-index has been shown to increase in many cases mostly because of citations to rather old publications. This inertia can be circumvented by restricting the evaluation to a citation time window. Here I report results of an empirical study analyzing the evolution of the thus defined timed h-index in dependence on the length of the citation time window.

0.020261422 = product of:
  0.08104569 = sum of:
    0.08104569 = weight(_text_:evolution in 5260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08104569 = score(doc=5260,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.41379923 = fieldWeight in 5260, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5260)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Fortsetzung als Teil 2: Pedauque - Philosophie of Information - Mathematik und Kybernetik. Unter: Open Password. 2019, Nr.559 vom 14. Mai 2019 [https://www.password-online.de/?wysija-page=1&controller=email&action=view&email_id=706&wysijap=subscriptions&user_id=1045]. Fortsetzung als Teil 3: Naturwissenschaften und Evolution: Die Rolle der Informationswissenschaft. Unter: Open Password. 2019, Nr.564 vom 23. Mai 2019 [https://www.password-online.de/?wysija-page=1&controller=email&action=view&email_id=709&wysijap=subscriptions&user_id=1045].

0.020261422 = product of:
  0.08104569 = sum of:
    0.08104569 = weight(_text_:evolution in 5997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08104569 = score(doc=5997,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.41379923 = fieldWeight in 5997, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5997)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Thesauri are Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS), that arise from the consensus of wide communities. They have been in use for many years and are regularly updated. Whereas in the past thesauri were designed for information professionals for indexing and searching, today there is a demand for conceptual vocabularies that enable inferencing by machines. The development of the Semantic Web has brought a new opportunity for thesauri, but thesauri also face the challenge of proving that they add value to it. The evolution of thesauri toward their integration with the Semantic Web is examined. Elements and structures in the thesaurus standard, ISO 25964, and SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System), the Semantic Web standard for representing KOS, are reviewed and compared. Moreover, the integrity rules of thesauri are contrasted with the axioms of SKOS. How SKOS has been applied to represent some real thesauri is taken into account. Three thesauri are chosen for this aim: AGROVOC, EuroVoc and the UNESCO Thesaurus. Based on the results of this comparison and analysis, the benefits that Semantic Web technologies offer to thesauri, how thesauri can contribute to the Semantic Web, and the challenges that would help to improve their integration with the Semantic Web are discussed.

0.020057783 = product of:
  0.08023113 = sum of:
    0.08023113 = weight(_text_:evolution in 4328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08023113 = score(doc=4328,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.4096403 = fieldWeight in 4328, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4328)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die Beziehung Information - Wissen ist einfach und fast definitiv, aber die Beziehung Informationswissenschaft - Philosophie ist ein großes neues Thema. Man kann Philosophie nicht bleibend und systematisch strukturieren, sie ist zu lebendig. Der Mensch ist keine Maschine und selbst Computer werden den Menschen nicht ersetzen können. Der gravierendste Unterschied bleibt die Lebendigkeit, die ein Computer per se nicht haben kann. Auch die Evolution des Wissens der gesamten Menschheit ist nicht festlegbar, wie etwa der Druck eines Buches oder Bildes oder die Entwicklung jeder neuen Computer-Generation. Man kann die Informationswissenschaft einsetzen, um Philosophie übersichtlicher, interessanter, einheitlicher und wahrer (= dem Menschen gerechter) zu machen. Keinesfalls kann und soll Philosophie ersetzt werden.

0.014326988 = product of:
  0.05730795 = sum of:
    0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05730795 = score(doc=470,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 470, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=470)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

With the rapidly increasing pace at which Web content is evolving, particularly social media, preserving the Web and its evolution over time becomes an important challenge. Meaningful analysis of Web content lends itself to an entity-centric view to organise Web resources according to the information objects related to them. Therefore, the crucial challenge is to extract, detect and correlate entities from a vast number of heterogeneous Web resources where the nature and quality of the content may vary heavily. While a wealth of information extraction tools aid this process, we believe that, the consolidation of automatically extracted data has to be treated as an equally important step in order to ensure high quality and non-ambiguity of generated data. In this paper we present an approach which is based on an iterative cycle exploiting Web data for (1) targeted archiving/crawling of Web objects, (2) entity extraction, and detection, and (3) entity correlation. The long-term goal is to preserve Web content over time and allow its navigation and analysis based on well-formed structured RDF data about entities.

0.014326988 = product of:
  0.05730795 = sum of:
    0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05730795 = score(doc=763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=763)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vgl. Kommentar Eversberg: Wer dranbleiben will am Puls der Zeit und speziell an der sich dynamisierenden Evolution eines neuen Datenformatkonzepts, der sollte sich langsam beeilen, sich mit BIBFRAME vertraut zu machen: http://bibframe.org Diese Startseite organisiert nun den Zugang zu allem, was schon vorliegt und präsentabel ist, und das ist allerhand. Wer erst mal nur schnuppern will und schauen, wie denn BIBFRAME-Daten wohl aussehen, gehe zur "demonstration area", wo man u.a. auch aufbereitete Daten der DNB findet. Es gibt ferner Online Tools, und darunter einen "Transformation service", dem man eigenes MARC-XML übergeben kann, damit er was draus mache. [Exporte mit unserem MARCXML.APR klappen nicht unmittelbar, man muß zumindest die in der Datei schon vorhandenen zwei Kopfzeilen aktivieren und ans Ende noch </collection> setzen. Und hierarchische Daten machen noch Probleme, die wir uns vornehmen müssen.] Wer jetzt denkt, "Was geht uns das alles an?", der lese die letzte Zeile, die da lautet: "BIBFRAME.ORG is a collaborative effort of US Library of Congress, Zepheira and you!"

0.014326988 = product of:
  0.05730795 = sum of:
    0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 4069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05730795 = score(doc=4069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 4069, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4069)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

"Kommt einem das nicht aus der Diskussion um Menschenrechte für Tiere bekannt vor? Da fordern die einen vehement das ein, was für Menschen gesetzt scheint. Unversehrtheit von Leib und Leben, vor allem wenn sie ein Schmerzempfinden haben. Bioethiker Peter Singer begibt sich auf die schwierige Argumentationslinie, dass manche Tiere geistig behinderten Menschen das Wasser reichen könnten. Und andere wie Peter Kunzmann sagen, dass eine solche Initiative die Grundrechte des Menschen aushöhlen könnten. Und dass das moderne Verständnis von Menschenrecht wie etwa das Recht auf Asyl sich auf das Leben in einer Kultur bezieht, die sich Menschen geschaffen haben. Ja nun, man führt ja auch kein Wahlrecht für Gänseblümchen ein. Verstehe. Das ganze wird jetzt hackelig, wenn man nun anfängt, diese Diskussion auf Roboter und AI gesteuerte Bots zu übertragen. Nach einer allgemeinen Definition zeichnen sich Lebewesen dadurch aus, dass sie "(...) unter anderem zu Stoffwechsel, Fortpflanzung, Reizbarkeit, Wachstum und Evolution fähig sind." Gut, die ersteren beiden kann man Bots noch absprechen, aber trotzdem steht man plötzlich mitten in der Diskussion darüber, ob Bots nicht auch das Recht auf freie Rede haben sollten. Dummerweise hat die Verfassung der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika sich in dieser Zeit noch nicht wirklich um die genaue Definition der Zielgruppe eines solchen Amendments gekümmert. Da steht nichts von Menschen, nur vom "Volk" (the people)." Vgl.: http://www.heise.de/-4237434.

0.014326988 = product of:
  0.05730795 = sum of:
    0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 5243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05730795 = score(doc=5243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 5243, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5243)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Überlegungen dazu, wie autonome Systeme handeln sollten, um in die Welt der Menschen integriert werden zu können Ob Maschinen oder Roboter eine Ethik brauchen, um verantwortungsvoll zu handeln, oder ob Regeln schlicht reichen, ist umstritten. Um moralisch handeln zu können, müssten KI-Systeme nach geläufigen philosophischen Überlegungen entweder Selbstbewusstsein und freien Willen besitzen und vernünftig oder emotional in uneindeutigen Situationen eine moralisch richtige Entscheidung treffen. Ob Menschen meist so handeln, sofern sie überhaupt moralisch verantwortlich entscheiden, oder auch nur meinen, sie würden moralisch richtig handeln, was andere mit gewichtigen Argumenten bestreiten können, sei dahingestellt, ganz abgesehen davon, ob es einen freien Willen gibt. Man kann aber durchaus der Überzeugung sein, dass Menschen in der Regel etwa im Straßenverkehr, wenn schnelle Reaktionen erforderlich sind, instinktiv oder aus dem Bauch heraus entscheiden, also bestenfalls nach einer Moral handeln, die in der Evolution und durch Vererbung und eigene Erfahrung entstanden ist und das Verhalten vor jedem Selbstbewusstsein und freiem Willen determiniert. Ist es daher nicht naiv, wenn von Maschinen wie autonomen Fahrzeugen moralische Entscheidungen gefordert werden und nicht einfach Regeln oder eine "programmierte Ethik" eingebaut werden?

0.0121568525 = product of:
  0.04862741 = sum of:
    0.04862741 = weight(_text_:evolution in 468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04862741 = score(doc=468,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.24827953 = fieldWeight in 468, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=468)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

One of the major challenges of digital archiving is how to deal with changing technologies and changing user communities. On the one hand software, hardware and (multimedia) data formats that become obsolete and are not supported anymore still need to be kept accessible. On the other hand changing user communities necessitate technical means to formalize, detect and measure knowledge evolution. Furthermore, digital archival records are usually not deleted from the AIS and therefore, the amount of digitally archived (multimedia) content can be expected to grow rapidly. Therefore, efficient storage management solutions geared to the fact that cultural heritage is not as frequently accessed like up-to-date content residing in a digital library are required. Software and hardware needs to be tightly connected based on sophisticated knowledge representation and management models in order to face that challenge. In line with the above, contributions to the workshop should focus on, but are not limited to:
Semantic search & semantic information retrieval in digital archives and digital libraries Semantic multimedia archives Ontologies & linked data for digital archives and digital libraries Ontologies & linked data for multimedia archives Implementations and evaluations of semantic digital archives Visualization and exploration of digital content User interfaces for semantic digital libraries User interfaces for intelligent multimedia information retrieval User studies focusing on end-user needs and information seeking behavior of end-users Theoretical and practical archiving frameworks using Semantic (Web) technologies Logical theories for digital archives Semantic (Web) services implementing the OAIS standard Semantic or logical provenance models for digital archives or digital libraries Information integration/semantic ingest (e.g. from digital libraries) Trust for ingest and data security/integrity check for long-term storage of archival records Semantic extensions of emulation/virtualization methodologies tailored for digital archives Semantic long-term storage and hardware organization tailored for AIS Migration strategies based on Semantic (Web) technologies Knowledge evolution We expect new insights and results for sustainable technical solutions for digital archiving using knowledge management techniques based on semantic technologies. The workshop emphasizes interdisciplinarity and aims at an audience consisting of scientists and scholars from the digital library, digital archiving, multimedia technology and semantic web community, the information and library sciences, as well as, from the social sciences and (digital) humanities, in particular people working on the mentioned topics. We encourage end-users, practitioners and policy-makers from cultural heritage institutions to participate as well.

0.01146159 = product of:
  0.04584636 = sum of:
    0.04584636 = weight(_text_:evolution in 1076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04584636 = score(doc=1076,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.23408018 = fieldWeight in 1076, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1076)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

FULL PAPERS Provenance and Annotations for Linked Data - Kai Eckert How Portable Are the Metadata Standards for Scientific Data? A Proposal for a Metadata Infrastructure - Jian Qin, Kai Li Lessons Learned in Implementing the Extended Date/Time Format in a Large Digital Library - Hannah Tarver, Mark Phillips Towards the Representation of Chinese Traditional Music: A State of the Art Review of Music Metadata Standards - Mi Tian, György Fazekas, Dawn Black, Mark Sandler Maps and Gaps: Strategies for Vocabulary Design and Development - Diane Ileana Hillmann, Gordon Dunsire, Jon Phipps A Method for the Development of Dublin Core Application Profiles (Me4DCAP V0.1): Aescription - Mariana Curado Malta, Ana Alice Baptista Find and Combine Vocabularies to Design Metadata Application Profiles using Schema Registries and LOD Resources - Tsunagu Honma, Mitsuharu Nagamori, Shigeo Sugimoto Achieving Interoperability between the CARARE Schema for Monuments and Sites and the Europeana Data Model - Antoine Isaac, Valentine Charles, Kate Fernie, Costis Dallas, Dimitris Gavrilis, Stavros Angelis With a Focused Intent: Evolution of DCMI as a Research Community - Jihee Beak, Richard P. Smiraglia Metadata Capital in a Data Repository - Jane Greenberg, Shea Swauger, Elena Feinstein DC Metadata is Alive and Well - A New Standard for Education - Liddy Nevile Representation of the UNIMARC Bibliographic Data Format in Resource Description Framework - Gordon Dunsire, Mirna Willer, Predrag Perozic

0.005904314 = product of:
  0.023617256 = sum of:
    0.023617256 = product of:
      0.070851766 = sum of:
        0.070851766 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070851766 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38

0.0058449726 = product of:
  0.02337989 = sum of:
    0.02337989 = product of:
      0.07013967 = sum of:
        0.07013967 = weight(_text_:22 in 8365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07013967 = score(doc=8365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 8365, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8365)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2015 16:08:38

0.005009976 = product of:
  0.020039905 = sum of:
    0.020039905 = product of:
      0.060119715 = sum of:
        0.060119715 = weight(_text_:22 in 1552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060119715 = score(doc=1552,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1552, 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=1552)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2018 11:04:35

0.004723451 = product of:
  0.018893804 = sum of:
    0.018893804 = product of:
      0.056681413 = sum of:
        0.056681413 = weight(_text_:22 in 4313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056681413 = score(doc=4313,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 4313, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4313)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2018 14:22:02

0.0041749803 = product of:
  0.016699921 = sum of:
    0.016699921 = product of:
      0.050099764 = sum of:
        0.050099764 = weight(_text_:22 in 5865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050099764 = score(doc=5865,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 2.2017 12:51:57

0.0041749803 = product of:
  0.016699921 = sum of:
    0.016699921 = product of:
      0.050099764 = sum of:
        0.050099764 = weight(_text_:22 in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050099764 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5576, 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=5576)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

13.12.2017 14:17:22