Search (135 results, page 1 of 7)

0.050100517 = product of:
  0.10020103 = sum of:
    0.10020103 = sum of:
      0.05067079 = weight(_text_:technology in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05067079 = score(doc=2606,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052224867 = queryNorm
          0.32576108 = fieldWeight in 2606, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2606)
      0.04953024 = weight(_text_:22 in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04953024 = score(doc=2606,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052224867 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2606, 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=2606)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Catalogers have become fluent in information technology such as web design skills, HyperText Markup Language (HTML), Cascading Stylesheets (CSS), eXensible Markup Language (XML), and programming languages. The knowledge gained from learning information technology can be used to experiment with methods of transforming one metadata schema into another using various software solutions. This paper will discuss the use of eXtensible Stylesheet Language Transformations (XSLT) for repurposing, editing, and reformatting metadata. Catalogers have the requisite skills for working with any metadata schema, and if they are excluded from metadata work, libraries are wasting a valuable human resource.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0429433 = product of:
  0.0858866 = sum of:
    0.0858866 = sum of:
      0.04343211 = weight(_text_:technology in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04343211 = score(doc=4752,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052224867 = queryNorm
          0.2792238 = fieldWeight in 4752, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4752)
      0.042454492 = weight(_text_:22 in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042454492 = score(doc=4752,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052224867 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4752, 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=4752)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As educational technology becomes pervasive, demand will grow for library content to be incorporated into courseware. Among the barriers impeding interoperability between libraries and educational tools is the difference in specifications commonly used for the exchange of digital objects and metadata. Among libraries, Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) is a new but increasingly popular standard; the IMS content-package (IMS-CP) plays a parallel role in educational technology. This article describes how METS-encoded library content can be converted into digital objects for IMS-compliant systems through an XSLT-based crosswalk. The conceptual models behind METS and IMS-CP are compared, the design and limitations of an XSLT-based translation are described, and the crosswalks are related to other techniques to enhance interoperability.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.69-81

0.036582813 = product of:
  0.073165625 = sum of:
    0.073165625 = sum of:
      0.030711137 = weight(_text_:technology in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030711137 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052224867 = queryNorm
          0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
      0.042454492 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042454492 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052224867 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3565, 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=3565)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

18. 6.2005 13:16:22

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.8, S.872-882

0.036582813 = product of:
  0.073165625 = sum of:
    0.073165625 = sum of:
      0.030711137 = weight(_text_:technology in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030711137 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052224867 = queryNorm
          0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
      0.042454492 = weight(_text_:22 in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042454492 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052224867 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4748, 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=4748)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Metadata and information technology staff in libraries that are building digital collections typically extract and manipulate MARC metadata sets to provide access to digital content via non-MARC schemes. Metadata processing in these libraries involves defining the relationships between metadata schemes, moving metadata between schemes, and coordinating the intellectual activity and physical resources required to create and manipulate metadata. Actively managing the non-MARC metadata resources used to build digital collections is something most of these libraries have only begun to do. This article proposes strategies for managing MARC metadata repurposing efforts as the first step in a coordinated approach to library metadata management. Guided by lessons learned from Cornell University library mapping and transformation activities, the authors apply the literature of data resource management to library metadata management and propose a model for managing MARC metadata repurposing processes through the implementation of a metadata management design.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.144-152

0.036582813 = product of:
  0.073165625 = sum of:
    0.073165625 = sum of:
      0.030711137 = weight(_text_:technology in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030711137 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052224867 = queryNorm
          0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
      0.042454492 = weight(_text_:22 in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042454492 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052224867 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2556, 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=2556)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

First generation scholarly research on the Web lacked a firm system of authority control. Second generation Web research is beginning to model subject access with library science principles of bibliographic control and cataloguing. Harnessing the Web and organising the intellectual content with standards and controlled vocabulary provides precise search and retrieval capability, increasing relevance and efficient use of technology. Dublin Core metadata standards permit a full evaluation and cataloguing of Web resources appropriate to highly specific research needs and discovery. Current research points to a type of structure based on a system of faceted classification. This system allows the semantic and syntactic relationships to be defined. Controlled vocabulary, such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings, can be assigned, not in a hierarchical structure, but rather as descriptive facets of relating concepts. Web design features such as this are adding value to discovery and filtering out data that lack authority. The system design allows for scalability and extensibility, two technical features that are integral to future development of the digital library and resource discovery.

Date

30.12.2008 18:22:46

0.035786085 = product of:
  0.07157217 = sum of:
    0.07157217 = sum of:
      0.036193423 = weight(_text_:technology in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036193423 = score(doc=154,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052224867 = queryNorm
          0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
      0.035378743 = weight(_text_:22 in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035378743 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052224867 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 154, 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=154)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Encoded Archival Description (EAD) has provided a new way to approach manuscript and archival collection representation. A review of previous representational practices and problems highlights the benefits of using EAD. This new approach should be considered a partner rather than an adversary in the access providing process. Technological capabilities now allow for multiple metadata schemas to be employed in the creation of the finding aid. Crosswalks allow for MARC records to be generated from the detailed encoding of an EAD finding aid. In the process of creating these crosswalks and detailed encoding, EAD has generated more changes in traditional processes and procedures than originally imagined. The North Carolina State University (NCSU) Libraries sought to test the process of crosswalking EAD to MARC, investigating how this process used technology as well as changed physical procedures. By creating a complex and indepth EAD template for finding aids, with accompanying related encoding analogs embedded within the element structure, MARC records were generated that required minor editing and revision for inclusion in the NCSU Libraries OPAC. The creation of this bridge between EAD and MARC has stimulated theoretical discussions about the role of collaboration, technology, and expertise in the ongoing struggle to maximize access to our collections. While this study is a only a first attempt at harnessing this potential, a presentation of the tensions, struggles, and successes provides illumination to some of the larger issues facing special collections today.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.030485678 = product of:
  0.060971357 = sum of:
    0.060971357 = sum of:
      0.025592614 = weight(_text_:technology in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025592614 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052224867 = queryNorm
          0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 3524, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3524)
      0.035378743 = weight(_text_:22 in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035378743 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052224867 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3524, 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=3524)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

16.11.2017 13:30:22

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.4, S.830-844

0.030485678 = product of:
  0.060971357 = sum of:
    0.060971357 = sum of:
      0.025592614 = weight(_text_:technology in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025592614 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052224867 = queryNorm
          0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
      0.035378743 = weight(_text_:22 in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035378743 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052224867 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4218, 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=4218)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The discovery and retrieval of video games in library and information systems is, by and large, dependent on a limited set of descriptive metadata. Noticeably missing from this metadata are classifications of visual style-despite the overwhelmingly visual nature of most video games and the interest in visual style among video game users. One explanation for this paucity is the difficulty in eliciting consistent judgements about visual style, likely due to subjective interpretations of terminology and a lack of demonstrable testing for coinciding judgements. This study presents a taxonomy of video game visual styles constructed from the findings of a 22-participant cataloging user study of visual styles. A detailed description of the study, and its value and shortcomings, are presented along with reflections about the challenges of cultivating consensus about visual style in video games. The high degree of overall agreement in the user study demonstrates the potential value of a descriptor like visual style and the use of a cataloging study in developing visual style taxonomies. The resulting visual style taxonomy, the methods and analysis described herein may help improve the organization and retrieval of video games and possibly other visual materials like graphic designs, illustrations, and animations.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.5, S.633-646

0.03001986 = product of:
  0.06003972 = sum of:
    0.06003972 = product of:
      0.12007944 = sum of:
        0.12007944 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12007944 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052224867 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 5743, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5743)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 3.2002 19:45:22

Source

Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.2, S.198-219

0.028302995 = product of:
  0.05660599 = sum of:
    0.05660599 = product of:
      0.11321198 = sum of:
        0.11321198 = weight(_text_:22 in 4899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11321198 = score(doc=4899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052224867 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4899, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4899)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

16. 7.2000 20:58:22

0.028302995 = product of:
  0.05660599 = sum of:
    0.05660599 = product of:
      0.11321198 = sum of:
        0.11321198 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11321198 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052224867 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

0.02476512 = product of:
  0.04953024 = sum of:
    0.04953024 = product of:
      0.09906048 = sum of:
        0.09906048 = weight(_text_:22 in 4407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09906048 = score(doc=4407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052224867 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4407, 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=4407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

28. 3.2002 9:22:34

0.02476512 = product of:
  0.04953024 = sum of:
    0.04953024 = product of:
      0.09906048 = sum of:
        0.09906048 = weight(_text_:22 in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09906048 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052224867 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7196, 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=7196)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

0.02476512 = product of:
  0.04953024 = sum of:
    0.04953024 = product of:
      0.09906048 = sum of:
        0.09906048 = weight(_text_:22 in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09906048 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052224867 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2841, 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=2841)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2

0.024388544 = product of:
  0.04877709 = sum of:
    0.04877709 = sum of:
      0.020474091 = weight(_text_:technology in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020474091 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052224867 = queryNorm
          0.13162735 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
      0.028302995 = weight(_text_:22 in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028302995 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052224867 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 367, 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=367)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The proliferation of discipline-specific metadata schemes contributes to artificial barriers that can impede interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. The authors considered this problem by examining the domains, objectives, and architectures of nine metadata schemes used to document scientific data in the physical, life, and social sciences. They used a mixed-methods content analysis and Greenberg's () metadata objectives, principles, domains, and architectural layout (MODAL) framework, and derived 22 metadata-related goals from textual content describing each metadata scheme. Relationships are identified between the domains (e.g., scientific discipline and type of data) and the categories of scheme objectives. For each strong correlation (>0.6), a Fisher's exact test for nonparametric data was used to determine significance (p < .05). Significant relationships were found between the domains and objectives of the schemes. Schemes describing observational data are more likely to have "scheme harmonization" (compatibility and interoperability with related schemes) as an objective; schemes with the objective "abstraction" (a conceptual model exists separate from the technical implementation) also have the objective "sufficiency" (the scheme defines a minimal amount of information to meet the needs of the community); and schemes with the objective "data publication" do not have the objective "element refinement." The analysis indicates that many metadata-driven goals expressed by communities are independent of scientific discipline or the type of data, although they are constrained by historical community practices and workflows as well as the technological environment at the time of scheme creation. The analysis reveals 11 fundamental metadata goals for metadata documenting scientific data in support of sharing research data across disciplines and domains. The authors report these results and highlight the need for more metadata-related research, particularly in the context of recent funding agency policy changes.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.8, S.1505-1520

0.021227246 = product of:
  0.042454492 = sum of:
    0.042454492 = product of:
      0.084908985 = sum of:
        0.084908985 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084908985 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052224867 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, 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=6048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.020474091 = product of:
  0.040948182 = sum of:
    0.040948182 = product of:
      0.081896365 = sum of:
        0.081896365 = weight(_text_:technology in 8065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081896365 = score(doc=8065,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052224867 = queryNorm
            0.5265094 = fieldWeight in 8065, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=8065)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information technology and libraries. 18(1999) no., S.192-199

0.020474091 = product of:
  0.040948182 = sum of:
    0.040948182 = product of:
      0.081896365 = sum of:
        0.081896365 = weight(_text_:technology in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081896365 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052224867 = queryNorm
            0.5265094 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 33(1998), S.187-220

0.020474091 = product of:
  0.040948182 = sum of:
    0.040948182 = product of:
      0.081896365 = sum of:
        0.081896365 = weight(_text_:technology in 6797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081896365 = score(doc=6797,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052224867 = queryNorm
            0.5265094 = fieldWeight in 6797, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6797)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 33(1999), S.187-222

0.02001324 = product of:
  0.04002648 = sum of:
    0.04002648 = product of:
      0.08005296 = sum of:
        0.08005296 = weight(_text_:22 in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08005296 = score(doc=2408,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052224867 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2408, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2408)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 1.2007 18:31:22

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.43-58