Search (195 results, page 1 of 10)

0.06511751 = product of:
  0.10852918 = sum of:
    0.04614727 = weight(_text_:on in 3660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04614727 = score(doc=3660,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.4208941 = fieldWeight in 3660, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3660)
    0.037953056 = weight(_text_:information in 3660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037953056 = score(doc=3660,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.43369597 = fieldWeight in 3660, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3660)
    0.024428863 = product of:
      0.048857726 = sum of:
        0.048857726 = weight(_text_:technology in 3660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048857726 = score(doc=3660,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.32906836 = fieldWeight in 3660, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3660)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Reports on a project to determine ways of measuring the impact of information and information technology on the economics of developing countries and to identify the short term and long term benefits resulting from various kinds of information activities

Theme

Information Resources Management

0.064223886 = product of:
  0.10703981 = sum of:
    0.045214903 = weight(_text_:on in 5829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045214903 = score(doc=5829,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.4123903 = fieldWeight in 5829, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5829)
    0.020367749 = weight(_text_:information in 5829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020367749 = score(doc=5829,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5829, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5829)
    0.04145716 = product of:
      0.08291432 = sum of:
        0.08291432 = weight(_text_:technology in 5829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08291432 = score(doc=5829,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.5584476 = fieldWeight in 5829, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5829)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Aslib's written submission to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. Extracts of the report referring to Aslib

Editor

House of Lords / Select Committee on Science and Technology

0.059961874 = product of:
  0.099936455 = sum of:
    0.061346166 = weight(_text_:section in 720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061346166 = score(doc=720,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.23320788 = fieldWeight in 720, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=720)
    0.015071635 = weight(_text_:on in 720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015071635 = score(doc=720,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13746344 = fieldWeight in 720, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=720)
    0.023518652 = weight(_text_:information in 720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023518652 = score(doc=720,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 720, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=720)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Finding particular documents after they have been reviewed and stored has been a challenge since the advent of the printed word. "Findability" is emphatically more important as we deal with information overload in general and with the specific need to quickly find relevant background information to support business decisions in a networked environment. Because time is arguably the most valuable asset in today's economy, information users value tools that help them (1) quickly find the information they are seeking and (2) manage the quantity and quality of information they manipulate and work with on a regular basis. Although the term "indexing" may lack the cachet of some other terms we use to describe current information organization and management concepts, indexing is fundamental to precise information organization and retrieval, especially when dealing with large sets of documents. Power users find great value in using a known, granular indexing language that can surface the most relevant items and filter out items of peripheral or no interest. Web architects and interface designers can likewise take advantage of indexing labels to present only the information meeting certain requirements for users who do not wish to learn the indexing structure or taxonomy. The user finds what is needed while the indexing language is used behind the scenes and is transparent to the user.
The importance of indexing in developing a content navigation strategy for corporate intranets or portals and the value of high-quality indexing when retrieving information from external resources are reviewed in this white paper. Some general background information on indexing and the use of controlled vocabularies (or taxonomies) are included for a historical perspective. Factiva Intelligent Indexing-which incorporates the best indexing expertise from both Dow Jones Interactive and Reuters Business Briefing-is described, along with some novel customer applications that take advantage of Factiva's indexing to create or improve information products delivered to users. Examples from the Excite and Google web search engines and from Dow Jones Interactive and Reuters Business Briefing are included in an Appendix section to illustrate how indexing influences the amount and quality of information retrieved in a specific search.

0.047883045 = product of:
  0.11970761 = sum of:
    0.092019245 = weight(_text_:section in 3369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.092019245 = score(doc=3369,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.34981182 = fieldWeight in 3369, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3369)
    0.027688364 = weight(_text_:on in 3369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027688364 = score(doc=3369,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 3369, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3369)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The ENQUIRE project forms part of a series of investigations on query expansion in the Okapi experimental text retrieval system. A configurable user interface was implemented as an evaluative tool and tested in two locations on two different databases: the library catalogue of The London Business SChool and the computing section of INSPEC. The system offered a range of possible strategies based on thesaural terms for reformulating queries. These could be initiated automatically by the system or interactively with the user. The formative phase of the evaluation established the appropriateness and usability of the interface as well as users' perceptions of the underlying functionality. The aim of the large scale field trial was to determine to what extent user would select thesaural terms suggested by the system to reformulate queries, and to evaluate the effectiveness of a new dynamic form of query expansion implemented for this project

0.046431758 = product of:
  0.07738626 = sum of:
    0.026643137 = weight(_text_:on in 7306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026643137 = score(doc=7306,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 7306, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7306)
    0.016973123 = weight(_text_:information in 7306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016973123 = score(doc=7306,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 7306, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7306)
    0.03377 = product of:
      0.06754 = sum of:
        0.06754 = weight(_text_:22 in 7306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06754 = score(doc=7306,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 7306, 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=7306)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Date

22. 7.1996 19:53:48

0.043646775 = product of:
  0.07274462 = sum of:
    0.03230309 = weight(_text_:on in 2092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03230309 = score(doc=2092,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 2092, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2092)
    0.016802534 = weight(_text_:information in 2092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016802534 = score(doc=2092,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 2092, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2092)
    0.023639 = product of:
      0.047278 = sum of:
        0.047278 = weight(_text_:22 in 2092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047278 = score(doc=2092,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2092, 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=2092)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The object of this literature review is to provide a historical perspective of R and D work in the area of Knowledge Organization (KO). This overview/summarization will provide information on major areas of KO. Journal articles published in core areas of KO: (Classification, Indexing, Thesauri and Taxonomies, Internet and Subject approach to information in the electronic era and Ontologies will be predominantly covered in this literature review. Coverage in this overview may not be completely exhaustive, but it succinctly showcases major developments in the area of KO. This review is a good source of additional reading material on KO apart from prescribed reading material on KO

Date

22. 6.2015 16:13:38

0.034070607 = product of:
  0.08517651 = sum of:
    0.061346166 = weight(_text_:section in 172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061346166 = score(doc=172,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.23320788 = fieldWeight in 172, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=172)
    0.023830349 = weight(_text_:on in 172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023830349 = score(doc=172,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.21734878 = fieldWeight in 172, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=172)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In this document we provide an overall view of the state of the art in ontology alignment. It is organised as a description of the need for ontology alignment, a presentation of the techniques currently in use for ontology alignment and a presentation of existing systems. The state of the art is not restricted to any discipline and consider as some form of ontology alignment the work made on schema matching within the database area for instance. Heterogeneity problems on the semantic web can be solved, for some of them, by aligning heterogeneous ontologies. This is illustrated through a number of use cases of ontology alignment. Aligning ontologies consists of providing the corresponding entities in these ontologies. This process is precisely defined in deliverable D2.2.1. The current deliverable presents the many techniques currently used for implementing this process. These techniques are classified along the many features that can be found in ontologies (labels, structures, instances, semantics). They resort to many different disciplines such as statistics, machine learning or data analysis. The alignment itself is obtained by combining these techniques towards a particular goal (obtaining an alignment with particular features, optimising some criterion). Several combination techniques are also presented. Finally, these techniques have been experimented in various systems for ontology alignment or schema matching. Several such systems are presented briefly in the last section and characterized by the above techniques they rely on. The conclusion is that many techniques are available for achieving ontology alignment and many systems have been developed based on these techniques. However, few comparisons and few integration is actually provided by these implementations. This deliverable serves as a basis for considering further action along these two lines. It provide a first inventory of what should be evaluated and suggests what evaluation criterion can be used.

0.032591365 = product of:
  0.16295682 = sum of:
    0.16295682 = sum of:
      0.06840082 = weight(_text_:technology in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06840082 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.46069574 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
      0.094556 = weight(_text_:22 in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.094556 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2656, 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=2656)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

30.11.1995 20:53:22

Source

Library technology reports. 31(1995) Jan-Feb., S.1-11x

0.031831995 = product of:
  0.05305332 = sum of:
    0.022607451 = weight(_text_:on in 1404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022607451 = score(doc=1404,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 1404, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1404)
    0.0101838745 = weight(_text_:information in 1404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0101838745 = score(doc=1404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1404, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1404)
    0.020261997 = product of:
      0.040523995 = sum of:
        0.040523995 = weight(_text_:22 in 1404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040523995 = score(doc=1404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1404, 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=1404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Describes the final phase of the work on the ELINOR (Electronic Library INformation Online Retrieval) project at De Montfort University, Leicester, which concluded in 1996. ELINOR was 2 phase project with 3 overall goals: to create a practical pilot system based on a commercial product (Excalibur EFS); to investigate the expansion of a small scale electronic library to a larger, distributed library system; and to develop a more efficient and effective means of accessing and sharing resources within a networked multi campus institution. ELINOR was successful in demonstrating that libraries may conveniently digitize and supply smal collections of high demand materials over a campus network in text anf TIFF format. Operational conditions have so far indicated that the barriers are not technological but involve copyright, use issues and sustainability

Series

British Library Research and Innovation Centre (BLRIC) report; 22

0.028998304 = product of:
  0.07249576 = sum of:
    0.031971764 = weight(_text_:on in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031971764 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 6158, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6158)
    0.040523995 = product of:
      0.08104799 = sum of:
        0.08104799 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08104799 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6158, 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=6158)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: College and research libraries 22(1961) no.3, S.228 (G. Jahoda)

0.027969046 = product of:
  0.06992261 = sum of:
    0.049343787 = weight(_text_:on in 6768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049343787 = score(doc=6768,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.45004848 = fieldWeight in 6768, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6768)
    0.02057882 = weight(_text_:information in 6768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02057882 = score(doc=6768,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 6768, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6768)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Reports on a Centre for Information Quality Management (CIQM) BLRRD funded project which investigated the quality of databases in general use in the UK. Gives a literature review of quality in library and information services. Reports the results of a CIQM questionnaire survey on the quality problems of databases and their affect on users. Carries out databases evaluations of: INSPEC on ESA-IRS, INSPEC on KR Data-Star, INSPEC on UMI CD-ROM, BNB on CD-ROM, and Information Science Abstracts Plus CD-ROM. Sets out a methodology for evaluation of bibliographic databases

0.027859053 = product of:
  0.046431754 = sum of:
    0.015985882 = weight(_text_:on in 3685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015985882 = score(doc=3685,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 3685, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3685)
    0.0101838745 = weight(_text_:information in 3685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0101838745 = score(doc=3685,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3685, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3685)
    0.020261997 = product of:
      0.040523995 = sum of:
        0.040523995 = weight(_text_:22 in 3685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040523995 = score(doc=3685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3685, 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=3685)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Presents the findings of the South Ayrshire Libraries OPen Learning and the Internet project, Sep 1997 to Oct 1998. The objective was to demonstrate how open learning materials available on the Internet could be integrated with the provision of local open learning resources to provide an enhanced learning environment in public libraries. The main areas of concentration within the project were information skills support to public library users and the provision of WWW based independent materials to learners. The organisation and retrieval of Web based resources for local use was a major issue throughout the project. Recommends the adoption of Dublin Core metadata standards, the connection of databases of resources with searchable wen pages, and the development of thesauri of terms used to index the Web based resources locally. Sstaff training, and the new skills which will need to be developed, were identified as issues. Cost was also identified as a related issue, extending to issues such as access to open learning material and the Internet

Date

22. 5.1999 18:55:19

0.027184641 = product of:
  0.0679616 = sum of:
    0.039157256 = weight(_text_:on in 940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039157256 = score(doc=940,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.35714048 = fieldWeight in 940, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=940)
    0.028804345 = weight(_text_:information in 940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028804345 = score(doc=940,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 940, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=940)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Reports results of an investigation, undertaken at Sheffield University, Departmant of Information Studies, UK into the effects of postings information (the display on the screen of the number of references in the retrieved sets) on searching behaviour. Linked online searches were conducted, on the LISA database on CD-ROM, with and without postings information. Performance in terms of the number of relevant references, precision and recall was not significantly different whether postings information was available or not; but searches with postings information took more time and more sets were viewed than in searches without postings. Searchers thought that the lack of postings information had affected 90% of their searches. Proposes that training should place greater emphasis on the value of postings information at different stages of the search and should optimize the searching behaviour of those with different searching styles

0.027001636 = product of:
  0.045002725 = sum of:
    0.01787276 = weight(_text_:on in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01787276 = score(doc=1271,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.16301158 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.012472647 = weight(_text_:information in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012472647 = score(doc=1271,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.14252704 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.014657319 = product of:
      0.029314637 = sum of:
        0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029314637 = score(doc=1271,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based. Its realization will occur in cooperation with the private sector, and with the active collaboration of library users. Data will be gathered from multiple sources; change will happen quickly; and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static. The underlying technology that makes this future possible and necessary-the World Wide Web-is now almost two decades old. Libraries must continue the transition to this future without delay in order to retain their relevance as information providers. The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control encourages the library community to take a thoughtful and coordinated approach to effecting significant changes in bibliographic control. Such an approach will call for leadership that is neither unitary nor centralized. Nor will the responsibility to provide such leadership fall solely to the Library of Congress (LC). That said, the Working Group recognizes that LC plays a unique role in the library community of the United States, and the directions that LC takes have great impact on all libraries. We also recognize that there are many other institutions and organizations that have the expertise and the capacity to play significant roles in the bibliographic future. Wherever possible, those institutions must step forward and take responsibility for assisting with navigating the transition and for playing appropriate ongoing roles after that transition is complete. To achieve the goals set out in this document, we must look beyond individual libraries to a system wide deployment of resources. We must realize efficiencies in order to be able to reallocate resources from certain lower-value components of the bibliographic control ecosystem into other higher-value components of that same ecosystem. The recommendations in this report are directed at a number of parties, indicated either by their common initialism (e.g., "LC" for Library of Congress, "PCC" for Program for Cooperative Cataloging) or by their general category (e.g., "Publishers," "National Libraries"). When the recommendation is addressed to "All," it is intended for the library community as a whole and its close collaborators.
The Library of Congress must begin by prioritizing the recommendations that are directed in whole or in part at LC. Some define tasks that can be achieved immediately and with moderate effort; others will require analysis and planning that will have to be coordinated broadly and carefully. The Working Group has consciously not associated time frames with any of its recommendations. The recommendations fall into five general areas: 1. Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production for all libraries through increased cooperation and increased sharing of bibliographic records, and by maximizing the use of data produced throughout the entire "supply chain" for information resources. 2. Transfer effort into higher-value activity. In particular, expand the possibilities for knowledge creation by "exposing" rare and unique materials held by libraries that are currently hidden from view and, thus, underused. 3. Position our technology for the future by recognizing that the World Wide Web is both our technology platform and the appropriate platform for the delivery of our standards. Recognize that people are not the only users of the data we produce in the name of bibliographic control, but so too are machine applications that interact with those data in a variety of ways. 4. Position our community for the future by facilitating the incorporation of evaluative and other user-supplied information into our resource descriptions. Work to realize the potential of the FRBR framework for revealing and capitalizing on the various relationships that exist among information resources. 5. Strengthen the library profession through education and the development of metrics that will inform decision-making now and in the future. The Working Group intends what follows to serve as a broad blueprint for the Library of Congress and its colleagues in the library and information technology communities for extending and promoting access to information resources.

Editor

Library of Congress / Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control

0.026427442 = product of:
  0.066068605 = sum of:
    0.03014327 = weight(_text_:on in 7166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03014327 = score(doc=7166,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 7166, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7166)
    0.035925332 = weight(_text_:information in 7166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035925332 = score(doc=7166,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.41052482 = fieldWeight in 7166, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7166)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Reports a review of the literature on information seeking behaviour in fields other than information science. Fields covered were: innovation research, health communication studies; organizational decision making; and information requirements in information systems design. The review was an integrated review on the basis of what may be contributed to information science. Sets out a general model of information seeking behaviour and shows how that model may be reviewed in the light of work in other fields

0.024425104 = product of:
  0.06106276 = sum of:
    0.03730039 = weight(_text_:on in 7843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03730039 = score(doc=7843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.34020463 = fieldWeight in 7843, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7843)
    0.023762373 = weight(_text_:information in 7843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023762373 = score(doc=7843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 7843, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7843)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

0.024356699 = product of:
  0.060891744 = sum of:
    0.020367749 = weight(_text_:information in 2538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020367749 = score(doc=2538,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2538, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2538)
    0.040523995 = product of:
      0.08104799 = sum of:
        0.08104799 = weight(_text_:22 in 2538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08104799 = score(doc=2538,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2538, 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=2538)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of academic librarianship 22(1996) no.2, S.147 (A. Schultis)

0.024356699 = product of:
  0.060891744 = sum of:
    0.020367749 = weight(_text_:information in 234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020367749 = score(doc=234,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 234, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=234)
    0.040523995 = product of:
      0.08104799 = sum of:
        0.08104799 = weight(_text_:22 in 234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08104799 = score(doc=234,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 234, 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=234)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Pages

22 S

Series

British Library: Library and Information Commission research report; 74

0.024310444 = product of:
  0.060776107 = sum of:
    0.031971764 = weight(_text_:on in 2172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031971764 = score(doc=2172,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 2172, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2172)
    0.028804345 = weight(_text_:information in 2172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028804345 = score(doc=2172,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 2172, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2172)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: Government information quarterly. 12(1995) no.2, S.237-238 (N.D. Stevens)

Imprint

Washington, DC : US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science

0.02399387 = product of:
  0.03998978 = sum of:
    0.018458908 = weight(_text_:on in 1669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018458908 = score(doc=1669,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.16835764 = fieldWeight in 1669, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1669)
    0.011759326 = weight(_text_:information in 1669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011759326 = score(doc=1669,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 1669, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1669)
    0.009771545 = product of:
      0.01954309 = sum of:
        0.01954309 = weight(_text_:technology in 1669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01954309 = score(doc=1669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.13162735 = fieldWeight in 1669, 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=1669)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

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.