Search (384 results, page 1 of 20)

0.24833582 = product of:
  0.49667165 = sum of:
    0.12416791 = product of:
      0.37250373 = sum of:
        0.37250373 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.37250373 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39767802 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = 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)
    0.37250373 = weight(_text_:2f in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.37250373 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39767802 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = 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

0.19866864 = product of:
  0.3973373 = sum of:
    0.09933432 = product of:
      0.29800296 = sum of:
        0.29800296 = weight(_text_:3a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.29800296 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39767802 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.29800296 = weight(_text_:2f in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29800296 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39767802 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

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

0.12416791 = product of:
  0.24833582 = sum of:
    0.062083956 = product of:
      0.18625186 = sum of:
        0.18625186 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18625186 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39767802 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = 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)
    0.18625186 = weight(_text_:2f in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18625186 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39767802 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = 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.

0.060978904 = product of:
  0.12195781 = sum of:
    0.08382631 = weight(_text_:services in 100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08382631 = score(doc=100,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.4867596 = fieldWeight in 100, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=100)
    0.038131498 = product of:
      0.076262996 = sum of:
        0.076262996 = weight(_text_:22 in 100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076262996 = score(doc=100,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 100, 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=100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.05242333 = product of:
  0.10484666 = sum of:
    0.069153175 = weight(_text_:services in 2474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069153175 = score(doc=2474,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.40155616 = fieldWeight in 2474, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2474)
    0.03569348 = product of:
      0.07138696 = sum of:
        0.07138696 = weight(_text_:management in 2474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07138696 = score(doc=2474,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.45151538 = fieldWeight in 2474, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2474)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Cloudbasierte Bibliothekssysteme stellen die neue Generation der Bibliothekssysteme dar. Sie ermöglichen ein gemeinsames Management von Print- und elektronischen Medien. Da in der Hochschulbibliothek der Fachhochschule Münster die elektronischen Ressourcen entscheidend zur Literaturversorgung von Lehrenden und Studierenden beitragen, beschäftigt sich ein Projektteam seit Ende 2014 mit der Evaluation des Systems WorldShare Management Services (WMS) der Firma OCLC. Die ersten Ergebnisse und einige weitere Überlegungen zur Migration des Systems werden in diesem Beitrag vorgestellt.

Object

WorldShare Management Services

0.052226603 = product of:
  0.104453206 = sum of:
    0.079032205 = weight(_text_:services in 541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079032205 = score(doc=541,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.45892134 = fieldWeight in 541, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=541)
    0.025421001 = product of:
      0.050842002 = sum of:
        0.050842002 = weight(_text_:22 in 541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050842002 = score(doc=541,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 541, 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=541)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In this presentation, we therefore focus on a solution for providing uniform access to Digital Libraries and other online services. In order to enable uniform query access to heterogeneous sources, we must provide metadata interoperability in a way that a query language - in this case SPARQL - can cope with the incompatibility of the metadata in various sources without changing their already existing information models.

Content

Präsentation während der Veranstaltung "Networked Knowledge Organization Systems and Services: The 6th European Networked Knowledge Organization Systems (NKOS) Workshop, Workshop at the 11th ECDL Conference, Budapest, Hungary, September 21st 2007".

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:46

0.050815754 = product of:
  0.10163151 = sum of:
    0.06985526 = weight(_text_:services in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06985526 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.405633 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
    0.03177625 = product of:
      0.0635525 = sum of:
        0.0635525 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0635525 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 539, 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=539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Präsentation während der Veranstaltung "Networked Knowledge Organization Systems and Services: The 6th European Networked Knowledge Organization Systems (NKOS) Workshop, Workshop at the 11th ECDL Conference, Budapest, Hungary, September 21st 2007".

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:07

0.04914839 = product of:
  0.09829678 = sum of:
    0.069153175 = weight(_text_:services in 2472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069153175 = score(doc=2472,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.40155616 = fieldWeight in 2472, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2472)
    0.029143604 = product of:
      0.058287207 = sum of:
        0.058287207 = weight(_text_:management in 2472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058287207 = score(doc=2472,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.36866072 = fieldWeight in 2472, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2472)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Eines der wichtigsten neuen Handlungsfelder der Forschung, das im Zuge der Digitalisierung von Information entstanden ist, ist das Management von Forschungsdaten. Die Hochschulen müssen sich darauf einstellen, ihren Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftlern die notwendigen Strukturen und Services zur Verfügung zu stellen. Die in der Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (HRK) organisierten Leitungen der deutschen Hochschulen sehen darin eine zentrale Aufgabe. Die Universität Münster geht mit gutem Beispiel voran: In enger Zusammenarbeit mit der Hochschulleitung hat die Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek damit begonnen, Strukturen und Services zur Unterstützung des Forschungsdatenmanagements aufzubauen.

Theme

Information Resources Management

0.039717898 = product of:
  0.079435796 = sum of:
    0.05588421 = weight(_text_:services in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05588421 = score(doc=4686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.3245064 = fieldWeight in 4686, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4686)
    0.023551589 = product of:
      0.047103178 = sum of:
        0.047103178 = weight(_text_:management in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047103178 = score(doc=4686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.29792285 = fieldWeight in 4686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This document specifies usage scenarios, goals and requirements for a web ontology language. An ontology formally defines a common set of terms that are used to describe and represent a domain. Ontologies can be used by automated tools to power advanced services such as more accurate web search, intelligent software agents and knowledge management.

0.03846892 = product of:
  0.07693784 = sum of:
    0.059274152 = weight(_text_:services in 1156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059274152 = score(doc=1156,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.344191 = fieldWeight in 1156, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1156)
    0.017663691 = product of:
      0.035327382 = sum of:
        0.035327382 = weight(_text_:management in 1156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035327382 = score(doc=1156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 1156, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Non-academic questions regarding special services, phone numbers, web-sites, library policies, current procedures, technical notices, and other pertinent local institutional information are often asked at the academic library reference desk. These frequent and urgent information requests require tools and resources to answer efficiently. Although ready reference collections at the desk provide a tool for academic information, specialized local information resources are more difficult to create and maintain. As reference desk responsibilities become increasingly complex and communication becomes more problematic, a web database to collect and manage this non-academic, local information can be very useful. At the Oregon State University, librarians in the Reference Services Management group created a custom-designed web-log bulletin board to deal with this non-academic, local information. The resulting database provides reference librarians a one-stop location for the information and makes it easier for them to update the information, via email, as conditions, procedures, and information needs change in their busy, highly computerized information commons.

0.038381025 = product of:
  0.07676205 = sum of:
    0.055445895 = weight(_text_:services in 1752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055445895 = score(doc=1752,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.32196122 = fieldWeight in 1752, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1752)
    0.021316158 = product of:
      0.042632315 = sum of:
        0.042632315 = weight(_text_:22 in 1752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042632315 = score(doc=1752,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.2595412 = fieldWeight in 1752, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

"Although the Dewey Decimal Classification is currently available on the web to subscribers as WebDewey and Abridged WebDewey in the OCLC Connexion service and in an XML version to licensees, OCLC does not provide any "web services" based on the DDC. By web services, we mean presentation of the DDC to other machines (not humans) for uses such as searching, browsing, classifying, mapping, harvesting, and alerting. In order to build web-accessible services based on the DDC, several elements have to be considered. One of these elements is the design of an appropriate Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) structure for Dewey. The design goals of mapping the entity model of the DDC into an identifier space can be summarized as follows: * Common locator for Dewey concepts and associated resources for use in web services and web applications * Use-case-driven, but not directly related to and outlasting a specific use case (persistency) * Retraceable path to a concept rather than an abstract identification, reusing a means of identification that is already present in the DDC and available in existing metadata. We have been working closely with our colleagues in the OCLC Office of Research (especially Andy Houghton as well as Eric Childress, Diane Vizine-Goetz, and Stu Weibel) on a preliminary identifier syntax. The basic identifier format we are currently exploring is: http://dewey.info/{aspect}/{object}/{locale}/{type}/{version}/{resource} where * {aspect} is the aspect associated with an {object}-the current value set of aspect contains "concept", "scheme", and "index"; additional ones are under exploration * {object} is a type of {aspect} * {locale} identifies a Dewey translation * {type} identifies a Dewey edition type and contains, at a minimum, the values "edn" for the full edition or "abr" for the abridged edition * {version} identifies a Dewey edition version * {resource} identifies a resource associated with an {object} in the context of {locale}, {type}, and {version}
Some examples of identifiers for concepts follow: <http://dewey.info/concept/338.4/en/edn/22/> This identifier is used to retrieve or identify the 338.4 concept in the English-language version of Edition 22. <http://dewey.info/concept/338.4/de/edn/22/> This identifier is used to retrieve or identify the 338.4 concept in the German-language version of Edition 22. <http://dewey.info/concept/333.7-333.9/> This identifier is used to retrieve or identify the 333.7-333.9 concept across all editions and language versions. <http://dewey.info/concept/333.7-333.9/about.skos> This identifier is used to retrieve a SKOS representation of the 333.7-333.9 concept (using the "resource" element). There are several open issues at this preliminary stage of development: Use cases: URIs need to represent the range of statements or questions that could be submitted to a Dewey web service. Therefore, it seems that some general questions have to be answered first: What information does an agent have when coming to a Dewey web service? What kind of questions will such an agent ask? Placement of the {locale} component: It is still an open question if the {locale} component should be placed after the {version} component instead (<http://dewey.info/concept/338.4/edn/22/en>) to emphasize that the most important instantiation of a Dewey class is its edition, not its language version. From a services point of view, however, it could make more sense to keep the current arrangement, because users are more likely to come to the service with a present understanding of the language version they are seeking without knowing the specifics of a certain edition in which they are trying to find topics. Identification of other Dewey entities: The goal is to create a locator that does not answer all, but a lot of questions that could be asked about the DDC. Which entities are missing but should be surfaced for services or user agents? How will those services or agents interact with them? Should some entities be rendered in a different way as presented? For example, (how) should the DDC Summaries be retrievable? Would it be necessary to make the DDC Manual accessible through this identifier structure?"

0.037608087 = product of:
  0.075216174 = sum of:
    0.06049643 = weight(_text_:services in 1226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06049643 = score(doc=1226,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.3512885 = fieldWeight in 1226, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1226)
    0.014719742 = product of:
      0.029439485 = sum of:
        0.029439485 = weight(_text_:management in 1226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029439485 = score(doc=1226,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 1226, 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=1226)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

It has been suggested that institutional e-print services will become an important way of achieving the wide availability of e-prints across a broad range of subject disciplines. However, as yet there are few exemplars of this sort of service. This paper describes how physicists make use of an established centralized subject-based e-prints service, arXiv (formerly known as the Los Alamos XXX service), and discusses the possible implications of this use for institutional multidisciplinary e-print archives. A number of key points are identified, including technical issues (such as file formats and user interface design), management issues (such as submission procedures and administrative staff support), economic issues (such as installation and support costs), quality issues (such as peer review and quality control criteria), policy issues (such as digital preservation and collection development standards), academic issues (such as scholarly communication cultures and publishing trends), and legal issues (such as copyright and intellectual property rights). These are discussed with reference to the project to set up a pilot institutional e-print service at the University of Nottingham, UK. This project is being used as a pragmatic way of investigating the issues surrounding institutional e-print services, particularly in seeing how flexible the e-prints model actually is and how easily it can adapt itself to disciplines other than physics.

0.03755118 = product of:
  0.07510236 = sum of:
    0.066270515 = weight(_text_:services in 1175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066270515 = score(doc=1175,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.38481724 = fieldWeight in 1175, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1175)
    0.008831846 = product of:
      0.017663691 = sum of:
        0.017663691 = weight(_text_:management in 1175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017663691 = score(doc=1175,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.11172107 = fieldWeight in 1175, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1175)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Much progress has been made in aligning library services with changing (and increasingly digital and networked) research and learning environments. At times, however, this progress has been uneven, fragmented, and reactive. As libraries continue to engage with an ever-shifting information landscape, it is apparent that their efforts would be facilitated by a shared view of how library services should be organized and surfaced in these new settings and contexts. Recent discussions in a variety of areas underscore this point: * Institutional repositories: what is the role of the library in collecting, managing, and preserving institutional scholarly output, and what services should be offered to faculty and students in this regard? * Metasearch: how can the fragmented pieces of library collections be brought together to simplify and improve the search experience of the user? * E-learning and course management systems: how can library services be lifted out of traditional library environments and inserted into the emerging workflows of "e-scholars" and "e-learners"? * Exposing library collections to search engines: how can libraries surface their collections in the general Web search environment, and how can users be provisioned with better tools to navigate an increasingly complex information landscape? In each case, there is as yet no shared picture of the library to bring to bear on these questions; there is little consensus on the specific library services that should be expected in these environments, how they should be organized, and how they should be presented.
Libraries have not been idle in the face of the changes re-shaping their environments: in fact, much work is underway and major advances have already been achieved. But these efforts lack a unifying framework, a means for libraries, as a community, to gather the strands of individual projects and weave them into a cohesive whole. A framework of this kind would help in articulating collective expectations, assessing progress, and identifying critical gaps. As the information landscape continually shifts and changes, a framework would promote the design and implementation of flexible, interoperable library systems that can respond more quickly to the needs of libraries in serving their constituents. It will provide a port of entry for organizations outside the library domain, and help them understand the critical points of contact between their services and those of libraries. Perhaps most importantly, a framework would assist libraries in strategic planning. It would provide a tool to help them establish priorities, guide investment, and anticipate future needs in uncertain environments. It was in this context, and in recognition of efforts already underway to align library services with emerging information environments, that the Digital Library Federation (DLF) in 2005 sponsored the formation of the Service Framework Group (SFG) [1] to consider a more systematic, community-based approach to aligning the functions of libraries with increasing automation in fulfilling the needs of information environments. The SFG seeks to understand and model the research library in today's environment, by developing a framework within which the services offered by libraries, represented both as business logic and computer processes, can be understood in relation to other parts of the institutional and external information landscape. This framework will help research institutions plan wisely for providing the services needed to meet the current and emerging information needs of their constituents. A service framework is a tool for documenting a shared view of library services in changing environments; communicating it among libraries and others, and applying it to best advantage in meeting library goals. It is a means of focusing attention and organizing discussion. It is not, however, a substitute for innovation and creativity. It does not supply the answers, but facilitates the process by which answers are sought, found, and applied. This paper discusses the SFG's vision of a service framework for libraries, its approach to developing the framework, and the group's work agenda going forward.

0.03557103 = product of:
  0.07114206 = sum of:
    0.048898686 = weight(_text_:services in 540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048898686 = score(doc=540,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 540, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=540)
    0.022243375 = product of:
      0.04448675 = sum of:
        0.04448675 = weight(_text_:22 in 540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04448675 = score(doc=540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 540, 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=540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Präsentation während der Veranstaltung "Networked Knowledge Organization Systems and Services: The 6th European Networked Knowledge Organization Systems (NKOS) Workshop, Workshop at the 11th ECDL Conference, Budapest, Hungary, September 21st 2007".

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:27

0.035163272 = product of:
  0.070326544 = sum of:
    0.062966675 = weight(_text_:services in 1219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062966675 = score(doc=1219,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.36563262 = fieldWeight in 1219, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1219)
    0.007359871 = product of:
      0.014719742 = sum of:
        0.014719742 = weight(_text_:management in 1219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014719742 = score(doc=1219,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.09310089 = fieldWeight in 1219, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1219)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

For those building digital library services, the organisational barriers are sometimes far more intractable than technological issues. This was firmly flagged in one of the first workshops focusing specifically on the digital library research agenda: Digital libraries are not simply technological constructs; they exist within a rich legal, social, and economic context, and will succeed only to the extent that they meet these broader needs. The innovatory drive within the development of digital library services thrives on the tension between meeting both technical and social imperatives. The Renardus project partners have previously taken parts in projects establishing the technical basis for subject gateways (e.g., ROADS, DESIRE], EELS) and are aware that technical barriers to interoperability are outweighed by challenges relating to the organisational and business models used. Within the Renardus project there has been a determination to address these organisational and business issues from the beginning. Renardus intends initially to create a pilot service, targeting the European scholar with a single point of access to quality selected Web resources. Looking ahead beyond current project funding, it aims to create the organisational and technological infrastructure for a sustainable service. This means the project is concerned with the range of processes required to establish a viable service, and is explicitly addressing business issues as well as providing a technical infrastructure. The overall aim of Renardus is to establish a collaborative framework for European subject gateways that will benefit both users in terms of enhanced services, and the gateways themselves in terms of shared solutions. In order to achieve this aim, Renardus will provide firstly a pilot service for the European academic and research communities brokering access to those European-based information gateways that currently participate in the project; in other words, brokering to gateways that are already in existence. Secondly the project will explore ways to establish the organisational basis for co-operative efforts such as metadata sharing, joint technical solutions and agreement on standardisation. It is intended that this exploration will feed back valuable experience to the individual participating gateways to suggest ways their services can be enhanced.
Funding from the UK Electronic Libraries (eLib) programme and the European Community's Fourth Framework programme assisted the initial emergence of information gateways (e.g., SOSIG, EEVL, OMNI in the UK, and EELS in Sweden). Other gateways have been developed by initiatives co-ordinated by national libraries (such as DutchESS in the Netherlands, and AVEL and EdNA in Australia) and by universities and research funding bodies (e.g., GEM in the US, the Finnish Virtual Library, and the German SSG-FI services). An account of the emergence of subject gateways since the mid-1990s by Dempsey gives an historical perspective -- informed by UK experience in particular -- and also considers the future development of subject gateways in relation to other services. When considering the development and future of gateways, it would be helpful to have a clear definition of the service offered by a so-called 'subject gateway'. Precise definitions of 'information gateways', 'subject gateways' and 'quality controlled subject gateways' have been debated elsewhere. Koch has reviewed definitions and suggested typologies that are useful, not least in showing the differences that exist between broadly similar services. Working definitions that we will use in this article are that a subject gateway provides a search service to high quality Web resources selected from a particular subject area, whereas information gateways have a wider criteria for selection of resources, e.g., a national approach. Inevitably in a rapidly changing international environment different people perceive different emphases in attempts to label services, the significant issue is that users, developers and designers can recognise and benefit from commonalties in approach.
The Renardus project has brought together gateways that are 'large-scale national initiatives'. Within the European context this immediately introduces a diversity of organisations, as responsibility for national gateway initiatives is located differently, for example, in national libraries, national agencies with responsibility for educational technology infrastructure, and within universities or consortia of universities. Within the project, gateways are in some cases represented directly by their own personnel, in some cases by other departments or research centres, but not always by the people responsible for providing the gateway service. For example, the UK Resource Discovery Network (RDN) is represented in the project by UKOLN (formerly part of the Resource Discovery Network Centre) and the Institute of Learning and Research Technology (ILRT), University of Bristol -- an RDN 'hub' service provider -- who are primarily responsible for dissemination. Since the start of the project there have been changes within the organisational structures providing gateways and within the service ambitions of gateways themselves. Such lack of stability is inherent within the Internet service environment, and this presents challenges to Renardus activity that has to be planned for a three-year period. For example, within the gateway's funding environment there is now an exploration of 'subject portals' offering more extended services than gateways. There is also potential commercial interest for including gateways as a value-added component to existing commercial services, and new offerings from possible competitors such as Google's Web Directory and country based services. This short update on the Renardus project intends to inform the reader of progress within the project and to give some wider context to its main themes by locating the project within the broader arena of digital library activity. There are twelve partners in the project from Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, as well as the UK. In particular we will focus on the specific activity in which UKOLN is involved: the architectural design, the specification of functional requirements, reaching consensus on a collaborative business model, etc. We will also consider issues of metadata management where all partners have interests. We will highlight implementation issues that connect to areas of debate elsewhere. In particular we see connections with activity related to establishing architectural models for digital library services, connections to the services that may emerge from metadata sharing using the Open Archives Initiative metadata sharing protocol, and links with work elsewhere on navigation of digital information spaces by means of controlled vocabularies.

0.035105992 = product of:
  0.070211984 = sum of:
    0.049395125 = weight(_text_:services in 1154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049395125 = score(doc=1154,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.28682584 = fieldWeight in 1154, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1154)
    0.02081686 = product of:
      0.04163372 = sum of:
        0.04163372 = weight(_text_:management in 1154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04163372 = score(doc=1154,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 1154, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Metasearch - also called parallel search, federated search, broadcast search, and cross-database search - has become commonplace in the information community's vocabulary. All speak to a common theme of searching and retrieving from multiple databases, sources, platforms, protocols, and vendors at the point of the user's request. Metasearch services rely on a variety of approaches including open standards (such as NISO's Z39.50 and SRU/SRW), proprietary programming interfaces, and "screen scraping." However, the absence of widely supported standards, best practices, and tools makes the metasearch environment less efficient for the metasearch provider, the content provider, and ultimately the end-user. To spur the development of widely supported standards and best practices, the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) sponsored a Metasearch Initiative in 2003 to enable: * metasearch service providers to offer more effective and responsive services, * content providers to deliver enhanced content and protect their intellectual property, and * libraries to deliver a simple search (a.k.a. "Google") that covers the breadth of their vetted commercial and free resources. The Access Management Task Group was one of three groups chartered by NISO as part of the Metasearch Initiative. The focus of the group was on gathering requirements for Metasearch authentication and access needs, inventorying existing processes, developing a series of formal use cases describing the access needs, recommending best practices given today's processes, and recommending and pursing changes to current solutions to better support metasearch applications. In September 2005, the group issued their final report and recommendation. This article summarizes the group's work and final recommendation.

0.032641627 = product of:
  0.065283254 = sum of:
    0.049395125 = weight(_text_:services in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049395125 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.28682584 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.015888125 = product of:
      0.03177625 = sum of:
        0.03177625 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03177625 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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".

0.032525316 = product of:
  0.06505063 = sum of:
    0.048397146 = weight(_text_:services in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048397146 = score(doc=1192,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2810308 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
    0.016653487 = product of:
      0.033306975 = sum of:
        0.033306975 = weight(_text_:management in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033306975 = score(doc=1192,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.21066327 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In the June 2003 issue of D-Lib Magazine, Kenney et al. (2003) discuss a comparative study between Cornell's email reference staff and Google's Answers service. This interesting study provided insights on the potential impact of "computing and simple algorithms combined with human intelligence" for library reference services. As mentioned in the Kenney et al. article, Bill Arms (2000) had discussed the possibilities of automated digital libraries in an even earlier D-Lib article. Arms discusses not only automating reference services, but also another library function that seems to inspire lively debates about automation-metadata creation. While intended to illuminate, these debates sometimes generate more heat than light. In an effort to explore the potential for automating metadata generation, the Digital Knowledge Center (DKC) of the Sheridan Libraries at The Johns Hopkins University developed and tested an automated name authority control (ANAC) tool. ANAC represents a component of a digital workflow management system developed in connection with the digital Lester S. Levy Collection of Sheet Music. The evaluation of ANAC followed the spirit of the Kenney et al. study that was, as they stated, "more exploratory than scientific." These ANAC evaluation results are shared with the hope of fostering constructive dialogue and discussions about the potential for semi-automated techniques or frameworks for library functions and services such as metadata creation. The DKC's research agenda emphasizes the development of tools that combine automated processes and human intervention, with the overall goal of involving humans at higher levels of analysis and decision-making. Others have looked at issues regarding the automated generation of metadata. A session at the 2003 Joint Conference on Digital Libraries was devoted to automatic metadata creation, and a session at the 2004 conference addressed automated name disambiguation. Commercial vendors such as OCLC, Marcive, and LTI have long used automated techniques for matching names to Library of Congress authority records. We began developing ANAC as a component of a larger suite of open source tools to support workflow management for digital projects. This article describes the goals for the ANAC tool, provides an overview of the metadata records used for testing, describes the architecture for ANAC, and concludes with discussions of the methodology and evaluation of the experiment comparing human cataloging and ANAC-generated results.

0.032057434 = product of:
  0.06411487 = sum of:
    0.049395125 = weight(_text_:services in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049395125 = score(doc=3225,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.28682584 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
    0.014719742 = product of:
      0.029439485 = sum of:
        0.029439485 = weight(_text_:management in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029439485 = score(doc=3225,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 3225, 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=3225)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This is a report by a group "charged to identify current trends that will have a direct impact on cataloging operations and to define possible new roles for the online catalog and cataloging staff at Indiana University." Their one general conclusion after nine months of work is that "The need for cataloging expertise within the I.U. Libraries will not be diminished in the coming years. Rather, catalogers of the future will work in the evolving environment of publishing, scholarly communication, and information technology in new expanded roles. Catalogers will need to be key players in addressing the many challenges facing the libraries and the overall management and organization of information at Indiana University." The report also identifies five strategic directions. The report is an interesting read, and taken with the explosion of related reports (e.g., Calhoun's report to the Library of Congress cited in this issue, the UC Bibliographic Services TF Report), adds yet another perspective to the kinds of changes we must foster to create better library services in a vastly changed environment.

0.032057434 = product of:
  0.06411487 = sum of:
    0.049395125 = weight(_text_:services in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049395125 = score(doc=3373,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.28682584 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
    0.014719742 = product of:
      0.029439485 = sum of:
        0.029439485 = weight(_text_:management in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029439485 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 3373, 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=3373)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

A band of archivists and IT professionals at Harvard took on a project to convert nearly two million descriptions of archival collection components from marked-up text into the ArchivesSpace archival metadata management system. Starting in the mid-1990s, Harvard was an alpha implementer of EAD, an SGML (later XML) text markup language for electronic inventories, indexes, and finding aids that archivists use to wend their way through the sometimes quirky filing systems that bureaucracies establish for their records or the utter chaos in which some individuals keep their personal archives. These pathfinder documents, designed to cope with messy reality, can themselves be difficult to classify. Portions of them are rigorously structured, while other parts are narrative. Early documents predate the establishment of the standard; many feature idiosyncratic encoding that had been through several machine conversions, while others were freshly encoded and fairly consistent. In this paper, we will cover the practical and technical challenges involved in preparing a large (900MiB) corpus of XML for ingest into an open-source archival information system (ArchivesSpace). This case study will give an overview of the project, discuss problem discovery and problem solving, and address the technical challenges, analysis, solutions, and decisions and provide information on the tools produced and lessons learned. The authors of this piece are Kate Bowers, Collections Services Archivist for Metadata, Systems, and Standards at the Harvard University Archive, and Dave Mayo, a Digital Library Software Engineer for Harvard's Library and Technology Services. Kate was heavily involved in both metadata analysis and later problem solving, while Dave was the sole full-time developer assigned to the migration project.