Search (24 results, page 1 of 2)

0.04473507 = product of:
  0.08947014 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 5179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=5179,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5179, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5179)
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 5179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=5179,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 5179, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5179)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Definition of a conceptual reference model to provide a framework for the analysis of non-administrative metadata relating to library resources. The resulting model definition was approved by the FRBR Review Group (November 2016), and then made available to the Standing Committees of the Sections on Cataloguing and Subject Analysis & Access, as well as to the ISBD Review Group, for comment in December 2016. The final document was approved by the IFLACommittee on Standards (August 2017).

0.0292297 = product of:
  0.0584594 = sum of:
    0.01151509 = weight(_text_:information in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01151509 = score(doc=2417,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1301088 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
    0.046944313 = weight(_text_:standards in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046944313 = score(doc=2417,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20891973 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Using citation data to assess research ultimately means using citation-based statistics to rank things.journals, papers, people, programs, and disciplines. The statistical tools used to rank these things are often misunderstood and misused. - For journals, the impact factor is most often used for ranking. This is a simple average derived from the distribution of citations for a collection of articles in the journal. The average captures only a small amount of information about that distribution, and it is a rather crude statistic. In addition, there are many confounding factors when judging journals by citations, and any comparison of journals requires caution when using impact factors. Using the impact factor alone to judge a journal is like using weight alone to judge a person's health. - For papers, instead of relying on the actual count of citations to compare individual papers, people frequently substitute the impact factor of the journals in which the papers appear. They believe that higher impact factors must mean higher citation counts. But this is often not the case! This is a pervasive misuse of statistics that needs to be challenged whenever and wherever it occurs. -For individual scientists, complete citation records can be difficult to compare. As a consequence, there have been attempts to find simple statistics that capture the full complexity of a scientist's citation record with a single number. The most notable of these is the h-index, which seems to be gaining in popularity. But even a casual inspection of the h-index and its variants shows that these are naive attempts to understand complicated citation records. While they capture a small amount of information about the distribution of a scientist's citations, they lose crucial information that is essential for the assessment of research.
The validity of statistics such as the impact factor and h-index is neither well understood nor well studied. The connection of these statistics with research quality is sometimes established on the basis of "experience." The justification for relying on them is that they are "readily available." The few studies of these statistics that were done focused narrowly on showing a correlation with some other measure of quality rather than on determining how one can best derive useful information from citation data. We do not dismiss citation statistics as a tool for assessing the quality of research.citation data and statistics can provide some valuable information. We recognize that assessment must be practical, and for this reason easily-derived citation statistics almost surely will be part of the process. But citation data provide only a limited and incomplete view of research quality, and the statistics derived from citation data are sometimes poorly understood and misused. Research is too important to measure its value with only a single coarse tool. We hope those involved in assessment will read both the commentary and the details of this report in order to understand not only the limitations of citation statistics but also how better to use them. If we set high standards for the conduct of science, surely we should set equally high standards for assessing its quality.

0.023472156 = product of:
  0.093888626 = sum of:
    0.093888626 = weight(_text_:standards in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093888626 = score(doc=2810,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.41783947 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

The Library is consulting with stakeholders concerning the potential impact of these proposals. No firm decisions have yet been taken regarding either of these standards. FAST 1. The British Library proposes to adopt FAST selectively to extend the scope of subject indexing of current and legacy content. 2. The British Library proposes to implement FAST as a replacement for LCSH in all current cataloguing, subject to mitigation of the risks identified above, in particular the question of sustainability. DDC 3. The British Library proposes to implement Abridged DDC selectively to extend the scope of subject indexing of current and legacy content.

0.022904396 = product of:
  0.045808792 = sum of:
    0.012614149 = weight(_text_:information in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012614149 = score(doc=1271,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = 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)
    0.033194643 = weight(_text_:standards in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033194643 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.14772856 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

0.0138311 = product of:
  0.0553244 = sum of:
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 51) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=51,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 51, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=51)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The increasingly pervasive nature of the Web, expanding to devices and things in everydaylife, along with new trends in Artificial Intelligence call for new paradigms and a new look onKnowledge Representation and Processing at scale for the Semantic Web. The emerging, but stillto be concretely shaped concept of "Knowledge Graphs" provides an excellent unifying metaphorfor this current status of Semantic Web research. More than two decades of Semantic Webresearch provides a solid basis and a promising technology and standards stack to interlink data,ontologies and knowledge on the Web. However, neither are applications for Knowledge Graphsas such limited to Linked Open Data, nor are instantiations of Knowledge Graphs in enterprises- while often inspired by - limited to the core Semantic Web stack. This report documents theprogram and the outcomes of Dagstuhl Seminar 18371 "Knowledge Graphs: New Directions forKnowledge Representation on the Semantic Web", where a group of experts from academia andindustry discussed fundamental questions around these topics for a week in early September 2018,including the following: what are knowledge graphs? Which applications do we see to emerge?Which open research questions still need be addressed and which technology gaps still need tobe closed?

0.013692091 = product of:
  0.054768365 = sum of:
    0.054768365 = weight(_text_:standards in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054768365 = score(doc=318,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.2437397 = fieldWeight in 318, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=318)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die Gemeinsame Normdatei (GND) ist seit April 2012 die Datei, die die im deutschsprachigen Bibliothekswesen verwendeten Normdaten enthält. Folglich muss auf Basis dieser Daten eine Repräsentation für die Darstellung als Linked Data im Semantic Web etabliert werden. Neben der eigentlichen Bereitstellung von GND-Daten im Semantic Web sollen die Daten mit bereits als Linked Data vorhandenen Datenbeständen (DBpedia, VIAF etc.) verknüpft und nach Möglichkeit kompatibel sein, wodurch die GND einem internationalen und spartenübergreifenden Publikum zugänglich gemacht wird. Dieses Dokument dient vor allem zur Beschreibung, wie die GND-Linked-Data-Repräsentation entstand und dem Weg zur Spezifikation einer eignen Ontologie. Hierfür werden nach einer kurzen Einführung in die GND die Grundprinzipien und wichtigsten Standards für die Veröffentlichung von Linked Data im Semantic Web vorgestellt, um darauf aufbauend existierende Vokabulare und Ontologien des Bibliothekswesens betrachten zu können. Anschließend folgt ein Exkurs in das generelle Vorgehen für die Bereitstellung von Linked Data, wobei die so oft zitierte Open World Assumption kritisch hinterfragt und damit verbundene Probleme insbesondere in Hinsicht Interoperabilität und Nachnutzbarkeit aufgedeckt werden. Um Probleme der Interoperabilität zu vermeiden, wird den Empfehlungen der Library Linked Data Incubator Group [LLD11] gefolgt.

Content

Vgl. auch die GND-Modellierung unter: http://d-nb.info/standards/elementset/gnd#.

0.00853828 = product of:
  0.03415312 = sum of:
    0.03415312 = product of:
      0.06830624 = sum of:
        0.06830624 = weight(_text_:22 in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06830624 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5576, 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=5576)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

13.12.2017 14:17:22

0.0072827823 = product of:
  0.02913113 = sum of:
    0.02913113 = weight(_text_:information in 5018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02913113 = score(doc=5018,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 5018, 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=5018)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Summarizes findings of an international study on information-seeking habits and preferences: With extensive input from hundreds of librarians and OCLC staff, the OCLC Market Research team developed a project and commissioned Harris Interactive Inc. to survey a representative sample of information consumers. In June of 2005, we collected over 3,300 responses from information consumers in Australia, Canada, India, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Perceptions report provides the findings and responses from the online survey in an effort to learn more about: * Library use * Awareness and use of library electronic resources * Free vs. for-fee information * The "Library" brand The findings indicate that information consumers view libraries as places to borrow print books, but they are unaware of the rich electronic content they can access through libraries. Even though information consumers make limited use of these resources, they continue to trust libraries as reliable sources of information.

0.006007989 = product of:
  0.024031956 = sum of:
    0.024031956 = weight(_text_:information in 7858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024031956 = score(doc=7858,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 7858, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7858)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The focus of this paper is an quality of ontologies as they relate to interoperating information systems. Quality is not a property of something but a judgment, so must be relative to some purpose, and generally involves recognition of design tradeoffs. Ontologies used for information systems interoperability have much in common with classification systems in information science, knowledge based systems, and programming languages, and inherit quality characteristics from each of these older areas. Factors peculiar to the new field lead to some additional characteristics relevant to quality, some of which are more profitably considered quality aspects not of the ontology as such, but of the environment through which the ontology is made available to its users. Suggestions are presented as to how to use these Factors in producing quality ontologies.

0.006007989 = product of:
  0.024031956 = sum of:
    0.024031956 = weight(_text_:information in 4174) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024031956 = score(doc=4174,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 4174, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4174)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Diese Handreichung soll als Einstieg für Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler, die mit digitalen Daten arbeiten, sowie für alle an dieser Thematik Interessierten dienen und bietet darüber hinaus Hinweise zu weiterführender Information. Sie wurde von der Arbeitsgruppe "Forschungsdaten" der Schwerpunktinitiative "Digitale Information" der Allianz der deutschen Wissenschaftsorganisationen verfasst. Mit dieser Publikation, die als Einstieg für Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler, die mit digitalen Daten arbeiten, sowie für alle an dieser Thematik Interessierten dienen soll, ergänzt die AG Forschungsdaten die Serie von Handreichungen zu den verschiedenen Themenfeldern der Schwerpunktinitiative "Digitale Information" der Allianz der deutschen Wissenschaftsorganisationen. Neben grundlegenden Hinweisen zum Forschungsdatenmanagement bietet sie Hinweise zu weiterführender Information. Online-Version unter der Creative-Commons-Lizenz "Namensnennung" (CC-BY).

0.005946367 = product of:
  0.023785468 = sum of:
    0.023785468 = weight(_text_:information in 4743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023785468 = score(doc=4743,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 4743, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4743)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this paper, we describe in detail the Information Content Evaluation Map (ICE-Map Visualization, formerly referred to as IC Difference Analysis). The ICE-Map Visualization is a visual data mining approach for all kinds of concept hierarchies that uses statistics about the concept usage to help a user in the evaluation and maintenance of the hierarchy. It consists of a statistical framework that employs the the notion of information content from information theory, as well as a visualization of the hierarchy and the result of the statistical analysis by means of a treemap.

0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 4032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=4032,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4032, 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=4032)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0051497044 = product of:
  0.020598818 = sum of:
    0.020598818 = weight(_text_:information in 6068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020598818 = score(doc=6068,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274568 = fieldWeight in 6068, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6068)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Over the past 50 years, a variety of language-related capabilities has been developed in machine translation, information retrieval, speech recognition, text summarization, and so on. These applications rest upon a set of core techniques such as language modeling, information extraction, parsing, generation, and multimedia planning and integration; and they involve methods using statistics, rules, grammars, lexicons, ontologies, training techniques, and so on. It is a puzzling fact that although all of this work deals with language in some form or other, the major applications have each developed a separate research field. For example, there is no reason why speech recognition techniques involving n-grams and hidden Markov models could not have been used in machine translation 15 years earlier than they were, or why some of the lexical and semantic insights from the subarea called Computational Linguistics are still not used in information retrieval.
This picture will rapidly change. The twin challenges of massive information overload via the web and ubiquitous computers present us with an unavoidable task: developing techniques to handle multilingual and multi-modal information robustly and efficiently, with as high quality performance as possible. The most effective way for us to address such a mammoth task, and to ensure that our various techniques and applications fit together, is to start talking across the artificial research boundaries. Extending the current technologies will require integrating the various capabilities into multi-functional and multi-lingual natural language systems. However, at this time there is no clear vision of how these technologies could or should be assembled into a coherent framework. What would be involved in connecting a speech recognition system to an information retrieval engine, and then using machine translation and summarization software to process the retrieved text? How can traditional parsing and generation be enhanced with statistical techniques? What would be the effect of carefully crafted lexicons on traditional information retrieval? At which points should machine translation be interleaved within information retrieval systems to enable multilingual processing?

0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 4322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=4322,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4322, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4322)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Dieses Whitepaper befasst sich mit der Integration semantischer Technologien in bestehende Ansätze des Information Retrieval und die damit verbundenen weitreichenden Auswirkungen auf Effizienz und Effektivität von Suche und Navigation in Dokumenten. Nach einer Einbettung in die Problematik des Wissensmanagement aus Sicht der Informationstechnik folgt ein Überblick zu den Methoden des Information Retrieval. Anschließend werden die semantischen Technologien "Wissen modellieren - Ontologie" und "Neues Wissen ableiten - Inferenz" vorgestellt. Ein Integrationsansatz wird im Folgenden diskutiert und die entstehenden Mehrwerte präsentiert. Insbesondere ergeben sich Erweiterungen hinsichtlich einer verfeinerten Suchunterstützung und einer kontextbezogenen Navigation sowie die Möglichkeiten der Auswertung von regelbasierten Zusammenhängen und einfache Integration von strukturierten Informationsquellen. Das Whitepaper schließt mit einem Ausblick auf die zukünftige Entwicklung des WWW hin zu einem Semantic Web und die damit verbundenen Implikationen für semantische Technologien.

Content

Inhalt: 1. Einführung - 2. Wissensmanagement - 3. Information Retrieval - 3.1. Methoden und Techniken - 3.2. Information Retrieval in der Anwendung - 4. Semantische Ansätze - 4.1. Wissen modellieren - Ontologie - 4.2. Neues Wissen inferieren - 5. Knowledge Retrieval in der Anwendung - 6. Zukunftsaussichten - 7. Fazit

0.00426914 = product of:
  0.01707656 = sum of:
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 4178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=4178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4178, 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=4178)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2018 17:30:43

0.0034331365 = product of:
  0.013732546 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 5755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=5755,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5755, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5755)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Editor

Schwerpunktinitiative "Digitale Information" der Allianz der deutschen Wissenschaftsorganisationen

0.0034331365 = product of:
  0.013732546 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 3475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=3475,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3475, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3475)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

"Europeana.eu is about ideas and inspiration. It links you to 6 million digital items." This is the opening statement taken from the Europeana WWW-site (http://www.europeana.eu/portal/aboutus.html), and it clearly is concerned with the mission of Europeana - without, however, being over-explicit as to the precise nature of that mission. Europeana's current logo, too, has a programmatic aspect: the slogan "Think Culture" clearly again is related to Europeana's mission and at same time seems somewhat closer to the point: 'thinking' culture evokes notions like conceptualisation, reasoning, semantics and the like. Still, all this remains fragmentary and insufficient to actually clarify the functional scope and mission of Europeana. In fact, the author of the present contribution is convinced that Europeana has too often been described in terms of sheer quantity, as a high volume aggregation of digital representations of cultural heritage objects without sufficiently stressing the functional aspects of this endeavour. This conviction motivates the present contribution on some of the essential functional aspects of Europeana making clear that such a contribution - even if its author is deeply involved in building Europeana - should not be read as an official statement of the project or of the European Commission (which it is not!) - but as the personal statement from an information science perspective! From this perspective the opening statement is that Europeana is much more than a machine for mechanical accumulation of object representations but that one of its main characteristics should be to enable the generation of knowledge pertaining to cultural artefacts. The rest of the paper is about the implications of this initial statement in terms of information science, on the way we technically prepare to implement the necessary data structures and functionality and on the novel functionality Europeana will offer based on these elements and which go well beyond the 'traditional' digital library paradigm. However, prior to exploring these areas it may be useful to recall the notion of 'knowledge' that forms the basis of this contribution and which in turn is part of the well known continuum reaching from data via information and knowledge to wisdom.

0.0034331365 = product of:
  0.013732546 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 4496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=4496,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4496, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4496)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0030978066 = product of:
  0.012391226 = sum of:
    0.012391226 = product of:
      0.024782453 = sum of:
        0.024782453 = weight(_text_:organization in 2974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024782453 = score(doc=2974,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.13787198 = fieldWeight in 2974, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2974)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Wissen wird im modernen Wirtschaftsgeschehen zunehmend als eine wettbewerbsentscheidende Ressource angesehen. Es ist zu einem der wichtigsten Werte für Unternehmen geworden, um im globalen Wettbewerb bestehen zu können. Die Bemühungen der Unternehmen um Generierung und Akquisition von Wissen werden ständig intensiviert. Alle Anstrengungen, Wissen aus externen Quellen in die Unternehmung zu integrieren bzw. selbst neues Wissen zu erzeugen, bleiben allein jedoch wenig sinnvoll. "It's an ongoing quest within an organization (...) to help discover the location, ownership, value and use of knowledge artifacts, to lern the roles and expertise of people, to identify constraints to the flow of knowledge, and to highlight opportunities to leverage existing knowledge." (Grey 1999)

0.0030039945 = product of:
  0.012015978 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 1800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=1800,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1800, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1800)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The SAC Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures was authorized at the 1995 Midwinter Meeting and appointed shortly before Annual Conference. Its creation was one result of a discussion of how (and why) to promote the display and use of broader-term subject heading references, and its charge reads as follows: To investigate: (1) the kinds of relationships that exist between subjects, the display of which are likely to be useful to catalog users; (2) how these relationships are or could be recorded in authorities and classification formats; (3) options for how these relationships should be presented to users of online and print catalogs, indexes, lists, etc. By the summer 1996 Annual Conference, make some recommendations to SAC about how to disseminate the information and/or implement changes. At that time assess the need for additional time to investigate these issues. The Subcommittee's work on each of the imperatives in the charge was summarized in a report issued at the 1996 Annual Conference (Appendix A). Highlights of this work included the development of a taxonomy of 165 subject relationships; a demonstration that, using existing MARC coding, catalog systems could be programmed to generate references they do not currently support; and an examination of reference displays in several CD-ROM database products. Since that time, work has continued on identifying term relationships and display options; on tracking research, discussion, and implementation of subject relationships in information systems; and on compiling a list of further research needs.

Content

Enthält: Appendix A: Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures - REPORT TO THE ALCTS/CCS SUBJECT ANALYSIS COMMITTEE - July 1996 Appendix B (part 1): Taxonomy of Subject Relationships. Compiled by Dee Michel with the assistance of Pat Kuhr - June 1996 draft (alphabetical display) (Separat in: http://web2.ala.org/ala/alctscontent/CCS/committees/subjectanalysis/subjectrelations/msrscu2.pdf) Appendix B (part 2): Taxonomy of Subject Relationships. Compiled by Dee Michel with the assistance of Pat Kuhr - June 1996 draft (hierarchical display) Appendix C: Checklist of Candidate Subject Relationships for Information Retrieval. Compiled by Dee Michel, Pat Kuhr, and Jane Greenberg; edited by Greg Wool - June 1997 Appendix D: Review of Reference Displays in Selected CD-ROM Abstracts and Indexes by Harriette Hemmasi and Steven Riel Appendix E: Analysis of Relationships in Six LC Subject Authority Records by Harriette Hemmasi and Gary Strawn Appendix F: Report of a Preliminary Survey of Subject Referencing in OPACs by Gregory Wool Appendix G: LC Subject Referencing in OPACs--Why Bother? by Gregory Wool Appendix H: Research Needs on Subject Relationships and Reference Structures in Information Access compiled by Jane Greenberg and Steven Riel with contributions from Dee Michel and others edited by Gregory Wool Appendix I: Bibliography on Subject Relationships compiled mostly by Dee Michel with additional contributions from Jane Greenberg, Steven Riel, and Gregory Wool