Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.021173751 = product of:
  0.084695004 = sum of:
    0.084695004 = weight(_text_:services in 1568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084695004 = score(doc=1568,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.4918039 = fieldWeight in 1568, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1568)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Emerging standards in knowledge representation and organization are preparing the way for distributed vocabulary support in Internet search services. NetLab researchers are exploring several innovative solutions for searching and browsing in the subject-based Internet gateway, Electronic Engineering Library, Sweden (EELS). The implementation of the EELS service is described, specifically, the generation of the robot-gathered database 'All' engineering and the automated application of the Ei thesaurus and classification scheme. NetLab and OCLC researchers are collaborating to investigate advanced solutions to automated classification in the DESIRE II context. A plan for furthering the development of distributed vocabulary support in Internet search services is offered.

0.019758051 = product of:
  0.079032205 = sum of:
    0.079032205 = weight(_text_:services in 1669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079032205 = score(doc=1669,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.45892134 = fieldWeight in 1669, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1669)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

After a short outline of problems, possibilities and difficulties of systematic information retrieval on the Internet and a description of efforts for development in this area, a specification of the terminology for this report is required. Although the process of retrieval is generally seen as an iterative process of browsing and information retrieval and several important services on the net have taken this fact into consideration, the emphasis of this report lays on the general retrieval tools for the whole of Internet. In order to be able to evaluate the differences, possibilities and restrictions of the different services it is necessary to begin with organizing the existing varieties in a typological/ taxonomical survey. The possibilities and weaknesses will be briefly compared and described for the most important services in the categories robot-based WWW-catalogues of different types, list- or form-based catalogues and simultaneous or collected search services respectively. It will however for different reasons not be possible to rank them in order of "best" services. Still more important are the weaknesses and problems common for all attempts of indexing the Internet. The problems of the quality of the input, the technical performance and the general problem of indexing virtual hypertext are shown to be at least as difficult as the different aspects of harvesting, indexing and information retrieval. Some of the attempts made in the area of further development of retrieval services will be mentioned in relation to descriptions of the contents of documents and standardization efforts. Internet harvesting and indexing technology and retrieval software is thoroughly reviewed. Details about all services and software are listed in analytical forms in Annex 1-3.

0.010478289 = product of:
  0.041913155 = sum of:
    0.041913155 = weight(_text_:services in 942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041913155 = score(doc=942,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 942, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=942)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

1. Increased Importance of Knowledge Organization in Internet Services - 2. Quality Subject Service and the role of classification - 3. Developing the DDC into a knowledge organization instrument for the digital library. OCLC site - 4. DESIRE's Barefoot Solutions of Automatic Classification - 5. Advanced Classification Solutions in DESIRE and CORC - 6. Future directions of research and development - 7. General references

0.010478289 = product of:
  0.041913155 = sum of:
    0.041913155 = weight(_text_:services in 1668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041913155 = score(doc=1668,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 1668, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1668)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This working paper describes the creation of a test database to carry out the automatic classification tasks of the DESIRE II work package D3.6a on. It is an improved version of NetLab's existing "All" Engineering database created after a comparative study of the outcome of two different approaches to collecting the documents. These two methods were selected from seven different general methodologies to build robot-generated subject indices, presented in this paper. We found a surprisingly low overlap between the Engineering link collections we used as seed pages for the robot and subsequently an even more surprisingly low overlap between the resources collected by the two different approaches. That inspite of using basically the same services to start the harvesting process from. A intellectual evaluation of the contents of both databases showed almost exactly the same percentage of relevant documents (77%), indicating that the main difference between those aproaches was the coverage of the resulting database.

0.007944062 = product of:
  0.03177625 = sum of:
    0.03177625 = product of:
      0.0635525 = sum of:
        0.0635525 = weight(_text_:22 in 611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0635525 = score(doc=611,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 611, 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=611)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 8.2009 12:54:24

0.0055608437 = product of:
  0.022243375 = sum of:
    0.022243375 = product of:
      0.04448675 = sum of:
        0.04448675 = weight(_text_:22 in 1563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04448675 = score(doc=1563,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1563, 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=1563)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

5. 5.2003 9:22:09

0.0036799356 = product of:
  0.014719742 = sum of:
    0.014719742 = product of:
      0.029439485 = sum of:
        0.029439485 = weight(_text_:management in 1665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029439485 = score(doc=1665,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 1665, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1665)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Taxonomies are an important part of any knowledge management (KM) system, and automatic classification software is emerging as a "killer app" for consumer and enterprise portals. A number of companies such as Inxight Software , Mohomine, Metacode, and others claim to interpret the semantic content of any textual document and automatically classify text on the fly. The promise that software could automatically produce a Yahoo-style directory is a siren call not many IT managers are able to resist. KM needs have grown more complex due to the increasing amount of digital information, the declining effectiveness of keyword searching, and heterogeneous document formats in corporate databases. This environment requires innovative KM tools, and automatic classification technology is an example of this new kind of software. These products can be divided into three categories according to their underlying technology - rules-based, catalog-by-example, and statistical clustering. Evolving trends in this market include framing classification as a cyborg (computer- and human-based) activity and the increasing use of extensible markup language (XML) and support vector machine (SVM) technology. In this article, we'll survey the rapidly changing automatic classification software market and examine the features and capabilities of leading classification products.

0.0031776251 = product of:
  0.0127105005 = sum of:
    0.0127105005 = product of:
      0.025421001 = sum of:
        0.025421001 = weight(_text_:22 in 3284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025421001 = score(doc=3284,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3284, 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=3284)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2010 14:41:24

0.0029439486 = product of:
  0.011775794 = sum of:
    0.011775794 = product of:
      0.023551589 = sum of:
        0.023551589 = weight(_text_:management in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023551589 = score(doc=2596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)