Search (25 results, page 1 of 2)

0.0075366623 = product of:
  0.052756634 = sum of:
    0.052756634 = product of:
      0.10551327 = sum of:
        0.10551327 = weight(_text_:22 in 1612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10551327 = score(doc=1612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 1612, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

DK-Mitteilungen. 22(1978) Nr.5/6, S.13-18

0.0075366623 = product of:
  0.052756634 = sum of:
    0.052756634 = product of:
      0.10551327 = sum of:
        0.10551327 = weight(_text_:22 in 1625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10551327 = score(doc=1625,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 1625, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1625)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Nachrichten für Dokumentation. 26(1975), S.22-25

0.0075366623 = product of:
  0.052756634 = sum of:
    0.052756634 = product of:
      0.10551327 = sum of:
        0.10551327 = weight(_text_:22 in 1630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10551327 = score(doc=1630,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 1630, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1630)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

International classification. 8(1981), S.16-22

0.005275664 = product of:
  0.036929645 = sum of:
    0.036929645 = product of:
      0.07385929 = sum of:
        0.07385929 = weight(_text_:22 in 880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07385929 = score(doc=880,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 880, 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=880)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Pages

S.9-22

0.0049965307 = product of:
  0.034975715 = sum of:
    0.034975715 = weight(_text_:with in 6085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034975715 = score(doc=6085,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.3727424 = fieldWeight in 6085, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6085)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.0037683311 = product of:
  0.026378317 = sum of:
    0.026378317 = product of:
      0.052756634 = sum of:
        0.052756634 = weight(_text_:22 in 127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052756634 = score(doc=127,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 127, 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=127)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Footnote

Zugleich Dissertation Univ. Düsseldorf. - Rez. in: ZfBB. 22(1975) S.53-57 (H.-A. Koch)

0.003568951 = product of:
  0.024982655 = sum of:
    0.024982655 = weight(_text_:with in 2510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024982655 = score(doc=2510,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2662446 = fieldWeight in 2510, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2510)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Ingetraut Dahlberg presents a brief description of her career and involvement with cataloguing and classification schemes

0.003568951 = product of:
  0.024982655 = sum of:
    0.024982655 = weight(_text_:with in 5563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024982655 = score(doc=5563,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2662446 = fieldWeight in 5563, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5563)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Some time ago, some people said classification is dead, we don't need it any more. They probably thought that subject headings could do the job of the necessary subject analysis and shelving of books. However, all of a sudden in 1984 the attitude changed, when an OCLC study of Karen Markey started to show what could be done even with an "outdated system" such as the Dewey Decimal Classification in the computer, once it was visible on a screen to show the helpfulness of a classified library catalogue called an OPAC; classification was brought back into the minds of doubtful librarians and of all those who thought they would not need it any longer. But the problem once phrased: "We are stuck with the two old systems, LCC and DDC" would not find a solution and is still with us today. We know that our systems are outdated but we seem still to be unable to replace them with better ones. What then should one do and advise, knowing that we need something better? Perhaps a new universal ordering system which more adequately represents and mediates the world of our present day knowledge? If we were to develop it from scratch, how would we create it and implement it in such a way that it would be acceptable to the majority of the present intellectual world population?

0.0030283553 = product of:
  0.021198487 = sum of:
    0.021198487 = weight(_text_:with in 2669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021198487 = score(doc=2669,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.22591603 = fieldWeight in 2669, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2669)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The German standard on the construction and further development of classification systems is introduced with its background. The contents of its 8 chapters is described. A critical appraisal considers (1) the fact that the standard does not openly deal with the optimal form of CS, viz. faceted CS, but treats them as one possibility among others, although the authors seem to have had this kind in mind when recommending the section on steps of CS development and other sections of the standard; (2) that the standard does not give any recommendation on the computerization of the necessary activities in establishing CS; and (3) that a convergence of CS and thesauri in the form of faceted CS and faceted thesauri has not been taken into consideration. - Concludingly some doubts are raised whether a standard would be the best medium to provide recommendations or guidelines for the construction of such systems. More adequate ways for this should be explored

0.0030283553 = product of:
  0.021198487 = sum of:
    0.021198487 = weight(_text_:with in 47) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021198487 = score(doc=47,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.22591603 = fieldWeight in 47, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=47)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

For the purpose of establishing compatibility between the major universal classification systems in use, their structure principles were investigated and crucial points of difficulty for this undertaking were looked for, in order to relate the guiding classes, e.g. of the DDC, UDC, LCC, BC, and CC, to the subject groups of the ICC. With the help of a matrix into whose fields all subject groups of the ICC were inserted, it was not difficult at all to enter the notations of the universal classification systems mentioned. However, differences in terms of level of subdivision were found, as well as differences of occurrences. Most, though not all, of the fields of the ICC matrix could be completely filled with the corresponding notations of the other systems. Through this matrix, a first table of some 81 equivalences was established on which further work regarding the next levels of subject fields can be based

0.0030283553 = product of:
  0.021198487 = sum of:
    0.021198487 = weight(_text_:with in 2103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021198487 = score(doc=2103,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.22591603 = fieldWeight in 2103, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2103)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

So far terminological work has been mainly directed towards defining very special concepts. The more general ones, e.g. those denoting subject-fields have been neglected with the result that communication on this level has been seriously hampered. There exists a great number of such terms and also a growing trend for the formation of new ones. In the FRG an R&D project was started in 1972 with the collection of names of subject fields, it is intended to assemble their definitions in a dictionary and to build a general concept system by computercomparison of their characteristics as provided by their definitions. The nature of subject-fields is explained, details on the German collection are given as well as some results from a formal analysis of their concepts. It is proposed to initiate similar projects in other linguistic regions as well; this could be done under the auspices of Infoterm. Some application-possibilities for a general concept-system (e. g. a broad system of ordering) are given. The annex displays a scheme of 9 subject areas and about 90 subareas for the sorting of names of subject fields

0.0030146649 = product of:
  0.021102654 = sum of:
    0.021102654 = product of:
      0.042205308 = sum of:
        0.042205308 = weight(_text_:22 in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042205308 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.0028551605 = product of:
  0.019986123 = sum of:
    0.019986123 = weight(_text_:with in 5218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019986123 = score(doc=5218,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.21299566 = fieldWeight in 5218, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5218)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Outlines previous work done in the field of compatibility between indexing langugaes (IL), and describes the scope, limitations and advantages of establishing compatibility between IL. Suggests methods for verbal comparisons between IL as well as generation of an alphabetical comparison matrix M1. Conceptual comparisons, however, demand a conceptual reorganization of M1 into a compatibiliy matrix M2 with its two alternatices, namely a system-related matrix M3 and a hierarchical matrix M4. In conclusion, the use of a compatibility matrix and organizational problems are described

0.0028551605 = product of:
  0.019986123 = sum of:
    0.019986123 = weight(_text_:with in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019986123 = score(doc=3965,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.21299566 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Examines the nature of knowledge and the relationship between the transfer of knowledge and information communication. Discusses the 3 kinds of relationships existing between concepts: formal; form-categorical; and material relationships, and characteristics of concepts. Concludes with a discussion of conceptual structures for concept definitions, conceptual systematization , concept systematization and functionality, and the analytical, referent-oriented concept theory

0.0028551605 = product of:
  0.019986123 = sum of:
    0.019986123 = weight(_text_:with in 1476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019986123 = score(doc=1476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.21299566 = fieldWeight in 1476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1476)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Discusses the origin and evolution of the Information Coding Classification (ICC); its theoretical basis, and structure and advantageous attributes for organizing knowledge. Pleads that the considerable work already done on the system should be taken up and developed by interested research groups through collaborative effort. Concludes with some thoughts on the future of knowledge organization for information retrieval and other applications

0.0026646124 = product of:
  0.018652286 = sum of:
    0.018652286 = product of:
      0.037304573 = sum of:
        0.037304573 = weight(_text_:22 in 1493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037304573 = score(doc=1493,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1493, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1493)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 9.2014 19:01:18

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.0025236295 = product of:
  0.017665405 = sum of:
    0.017665405 = weight(_text_:with in 2104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017665405 = score(doc=2104,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.18826336 = fieldWeight in 2104, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2104)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

So far terminological work has been mainly directed towards defining very special concepts. The more general ones, e.g. those denoting subject-fields have been neglected with the result that communication on this level has been seriously hampered. There exists a great number of such terms and also a growing trend for the formation of new ones. In the FRG an R&D project was started in 1972 with the collection of names of subject fields, it is intended to assemble their definitions in a dictionary and to build a general concept system by computercomparison of their characteristics as provided by their definitions. The nature of subject-fields is explained, details on the German collection are given as well as some results from a formal analysis of their concepts. It is proposed to initiate similar projects in other linguistic regions as well; this could be done under the auspices of Infoterm. Some application-possibilities for a general concept-system (e. g. a broad system of ordering) are given. The annex displays a scheme of 9 subject areas and about 90 subareas for the sorting of names of subject fields.

0.0024982654 = product of:
  0.017487857 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 1381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=1381,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 1381, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1381)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

As an introduction, the circumstances leading to the foundation of the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO) are outlined and the prerequisites for the formal and conceptual description of the scope of knowledge organization (KO) are laid out, followed by the explanation of the scheme as used in the bibliography of KO. An overview is provided of the tasks and activities of this discipline; thereafter and in conclusion an urgent appeal is made to ISKO and to all active scientific societies with a view to establishing KO as an autonomous scientific discipline within the science of science, as well as an indication is given of urgently required tasks.

0.0023606392 = product of:
  0.016524473 = sum of:
    0.016524473 = weight(_text_:with in 4300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016524473 = score(doc=4300,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.17610425 = fieldWeight in 4300, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4300)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In 2009 ISKO had its 20th anniversary, a time for review and reflection on what might be envisaged to further Knowledge Organization in the forthcoming years. In addition to some proposals set forth at the end of this contribution, ten desiderata appear urgent. A preliminary condition to any other consideration is the recognition of the fundamental difference in the organization of knowledge between the concept (i.e., the unit of knowledge)-the conceptual level-and the word, term or code-the verbal level-and the need for implementing this distinction in theory and practice (Desideratum 1). On this basis, some further proposals are enunciated. The 2nd proposition concerns the surveying of extant classification systems, thesauri, and other means of organizing, ordering, and indexing knowledge; the 3rd proposition envisages the improvement of expert training in Knowledge Organization (KO), also with regard to curricula and professional acknowledgment. Nr.4) refers to the professionalization of the hitherto rather neglected national ISKO secretariats, as well as the international ISKO secretariat. Nr.5) urges a systematic survey of KO-relevant concepts to serve as a model or standard for other subject fields, Nr.6) claims the establishment of KO Institutes, Nr.7) views consultancy to the effect that anybody interested in KO may approach ISKO for help, Nr 8) urges ISKO's promotion of membership and chapters in as many countries as possible, Nr.9) presses for intensification of ISKO's publication activities, and Nr.10) pleads for KO as a scientific discipline on its own.

Content

1. Recognize the units in an order system (classification system, thesaurus, ontology, etc.) as concepts/knowledge units, analyse their essential characteristics, and use these characteristics when creating a Knowledge Order System. 2. Recognize the units in an order system (classification system, thesaurus, ontology, etc.) as concepts/knowledge units, analyse their essential characteristics, and use these characteristics when creating a Knowledge Order System. 3. An ISKO group should elaborate a curriculum for the various KO activities to be published after approval by the ISKO Executive Board (EB). Together with this, the qualifying titles of different professionals (teacher, professor, system designer etc.) should also be discussed by the ISKO EB, adopted and proposed for acknowledgement by official institutions; and, 2) It may be possible for ISKO to establish its own Academy and also take care of teaching with the elaborated curricula. 4. Every national ISKO Chapter and the General Secretariat should make efforts to employ a paid expert for the necessary secretarial work, and seek financial support therefore from national or international organizations, in order to become more professionalised. 5. The ISKO Executive Board should decide to elaborate and publish an order system of all KO-relevant concepts to serve as a model and perhaps sometimes as a standard for similar work in other scientific disciplines and knowledge fields.
6. Establishment of national Knowledge Organization Institutes should be scheduled by national chapters, planned energetically and submitted to corresponding administrative authorities for support. They could be attached to research institutions, e.g., the Max-Planck or Fraunhofer Institutes in Germany or to universities. Their scope and research areas relate to the elaboration of knowledge systems of subject related concepts, according to Desideratum 1, and may be connected to training activities and KOsubject-related research work. 7. ISKO experts should not accept to be impressed by Internet and Computer Science, but should demonstrate their expertise more actively on the public plane. They should tend to take a leading part in the ISKO Secretariats and the KO Institutes, and act as consultants and informants, as well as editors of statistics and other publications. 8. All colleagues trained in the field of classification/indexing and thesauri construction and active in different countries should be identified and approached for membership in ISKO. This would have to be accomplished by the General Secretariat with the collaboration of the experts in the different secretariats of the countries, as soon as they start to work. The more members ISKO will have, the greater will be its reputation and influence. But it will also prove its professionalism by the quality of its products, especially its innovating conceptual order systems to come. 9. ISKO should-especially in view of global expansion-intensify the promotion of knowledge about its own subject area through the publications mentioned here and in further publications as deemed necessary. It should be made clear that, especially in ISKO's own publications, professional subject indexes are a sine qua non. 10. 1) Knowledge Organization, having arisen from librarianship and documentation, the contents of which has many points of contact with numerous application fields, should-although still linked up with its areas of descent-be recognized in the long run as an independent autonomous discipline to be located under the science of science, since only thereby can it fully play its role as an equal partner in all application fields; and, 2) An "at-a-first-glance knowledge order" could be implemented through the Information Coding Classification (ICC), as this system is based on an entirely new approach, namely based on general object areas, thus deviating from discipline-oriented main classes of the current main universal classification systems. It can therefore recoup by simple display on screen the hitherto lost overview of all knowledge areas and fields. On "one look", one perceives 9 object areas subdivided into 9 aspects which break down into 81 subject areas with their 729 subject fields, including further special fields. The synthesis and place of order of all knowledge becomes thus evident at a glance to everybody. Nobody would any longer be irritated by the abundance of singular apparently unrelated knowledge fields or become hesitant in his/her understanding of the world.

0.0022609986 = product of:
  0.015826989 = sum of:
    0.015826989 = product of:
      0.031653978 = sum of:
        0.031653978 = weight(_text_:22 in 1736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031653978 = score(doc=1736,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1736, 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=1736)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 9.2014 19:00:13