Search (29 results, page 1 of 2)

0.031032179 = product of:
  0.062064357 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=4723,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
    0.047498792 = product of:
      0.094997585 = sum of:
        0.094997585 = weight(_text_:organization in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.094997585 = score(doc=4723,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.5284991 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Access of digital materials continues to be an issue of great significance in the development of digital libraries. The proliferation of information in the networked digital environment poses challenges as well as opportunities. The author reports on a wide array of activities in the field. While this publication is not intended to be exhaustive, the reader will find, in a single work, an overview of systems of knowledge organization and pertinent examples of their application to digital materials

Content

(1) Knowledge organization systems: an overview; (2) Linking digital library resources to related resources; (3) Making resources accessible to other communities; (4) Planning and implementing knowledge organization systems in digital libraries; (5) The future of knowledge organization systems on the Web

Imprint

Washington, DC : The Digital Library Federation; Council on Library and Information resources

0.030791279 = product of:
  0.061582558 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=234,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = 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)
    0.04098374 = product of:
      0.08196748 = sum of:
        0.08196748 = weight(_text_:22 in 234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08196748 = score(doc=234,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Pages

22 S

Series

British Library: Library and Information Commission research report; 74

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.

0.022904396 = 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.

0.021906357 = product of:
  0.043812715 = sum of:
    0.023785468 = weight(_text_:information in 720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023785468 = score(doc=720,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = 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)
    0.020027246 = product of:
      0.040054493 = sum of:
        0.040054493 = weight(_text_:organization in 720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040054493 = score(doc=720,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.22283478 = fieldWeight in 720, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=720)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

0.01680845 = product of:
  0.0336169 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=906,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 906, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=906)
    0.025034059 = product of:
      0.050068118 = sum of:
        0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050068118 = score(doc=906,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 906, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The need for improved semantic in teroperability between and among vocabularies and knowledge organization schemes is undeniable and growing in importance. There is an ever-increasing need to create an environment by which even multiple portals could be accessed via subject metadata using software that is neutral and available ubiquitously or directly to the user, that could be copied by libraries for use in their own environment. In order to develop or improve a knowledge organization system including emerging options in semantic interoperability, scholars and practitioners need to be able to evaluate a wide variety of projects and stay current with the professional literature. Based on its findings, the Subcommittee concludes that the development of a successful subject semantic interoperability project is a long and difficult process. It requires a substantial investment of financial, human and computer resources. The Subcommittee recommends using the information and tools in this report and its appendices to assist in developing a successful project incorporating subject semantic interoperability. Finally the Subcommittee concludes that since this field of endeavor is still relatively young and immature, it is too early to generate a set of Best Practices that could be used in developing a successful project. We are past the theoretical and basic research phase and into the development phase. Even though there are some successful projects in full production, more projects need to reach maturity and much more research needs to be done.

0.016283836 = product of:
  0.032567672 = sum of:
    0.014865918 = weight(_text_:information in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014865918 = score(doc=2627,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=2627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This report constitutes Phase I of a two-part study; a Phase II report will discuss subject cataloging. Phase I is concerned with the materials of a library as individual records (or documents) and as representations of certain works by certain authors--that is, with descriptive, or bibliographic, cataloging. Discussed in the report are (1) the history, role, function, and oblectives .of the author-and-title catalog; (2) problems and principles of descriptive catalogng, including the use and function of "main entry, the principle of authorship, and the process and problems of cataloging print and nonprint materials; (3) organization of the catalog; and (4) potentialities of automation. The considerations inherent in bibliographic cataloging, such as the distinction between the "book" and the "work," are said to be so elemental that they are essential not only to the effective control of library's materials but also to that of the information contained in the materials. Because of the special concern with information, the author includes a discussion of the "Bibliographic Dimensions of Information Control," 'prepared in collaboration with Robert M. Hayes, which also appears in "American Documentation," VOl.201 July 1969, p. 247-252.

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 3782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024031956 = score(doc=3782,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 3782, 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=3782)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

British Library: Library and Information Commission research report; 58

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 5829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024031956 = score(doc=5829,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = 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)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5829)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Information Resources Management

0.006007989 = product of:
  0.024031956 = sum of:
    0.024031956 = weight(_text_:information in 6479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024031956 = score(doc=6479,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 6479, 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=6479)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.005946367 = product of:
  0.023785468 = sum of:
    0.023785468 = weight(_text_:information in 6560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023785468 = score(doc=6560,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 6560, 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=6560)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Nowadays, users of information services are faced with highly decentralised, heterogeneous document sources with different content analysis. Semantic heterogeneity occurs e.g. when resources using different systems for content description are searched using a simple query system. This report describes several approaches of handling semantic heterogeneity used in projects of the German Social Science Information Centre

0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 6245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=6245,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 6245, 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=6245)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.0030978066 = 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)

0.0030344925 = product of:
  0.01213797 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=621,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 621, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=621)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Imprint

Hattingen : Institute for Information Economics

Theme

Information Resources Management

0.0030039945 = product of:
  0.012015978 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 5998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=5998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5998, 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=5998)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Information Gateway

0.0029731835 = product of:
  0.011892734 = sum of:
    0.011892734 = weight(_text_:information in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011892734 = score(doc=5013,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 5013, 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=5013)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The destabilizing influences of the Web, widespread ownership of personal computers, and rising computer literacy have created an era of discontinuous change in research libraries a time when the cumulated assets of the past do not guarantee future success. The library catalog is such an asset. Today, a large and growing number of students and scholars routinely bypass library catalogs in favor of other discovery tools, and the catalog represents a shrinking proportion of the universe of scholarly information. The catalog is in decline, its processes and structures are unsustainable, and change needs to be swift. At the same time, books and serials are not dead, and they are not yet digital. Notwithstanding widespread expansion of digitization projects, ubiquitous e-journals, and a market that seems poised to move to e-books, the role of catalog records in discovery and retrieval of the world's library collections seems likely to continue for at least a couple of decades and probably longer. This report, commissioned by the Library of Congress (LC), offers an analysis of the current situation, options for revitalizing research library catalogs, a feasibility assessment, a vision for change, and a blueprint for action. Library decision makers are the primary audience for this report, whose aim is to elicit support, dialogue, collaboration, and movement toward solutions. Readers from the business community, particularly those that directly serve libraries, may find the report helpful for defining research and development efforts. The same is true for readers from membership organizations such as OCLC Online Computer Library Center, the Research Libraries Group, the Association for Research Libraries, the Council on Library and Information Resources, the Coalition for Networked Information, and the Digital Library Federation. Library managers and practitioners from all functional groups are likely to take an interest in the interview findings and in specific actions laid out in the blueprint.

0.0029731835 = product of:
  0.011892734 = sum of:
    0.011892734 = weight(_text_:information in 721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011892734 = score(doc=721,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 721, 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=721)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In 2000, Factiva published "The Value of Indexing," a white paper emphasizing the strategic importance of accurate categorization, based on a robust taxonomy for later retrieval of documents stored in commercial or in-house content repositories. Since that time, there has been resounding agreement between persons who use Web-based systems and those who design these systems that search engines alone are not the answer for effective information retrieval. High-quality categorization is crucial if users are to be able to find the right answers in repositories of articles and documents that are expanding at phenomenal rates. Companies continue to invest in technologies that will help them organize and integrate their content. A March 2002 article in EContent suggests a typical taxonomy implementation usually costs around $100,000. The article also cites a Merrill Lynch study that predicts the market for search and categorization products, now at about $600 million, will more than double by 2005. Classification activities are not new. In the third century B.C., Callimachus of Cyrene managed the ancient Library of Alexandria. To help scholars find items in the collection, he created an index of all the scrolls organized according to a subject taxonomy. Factiva's parent companies, Dow Jones and Reuters, each have more than 20 years of experience with developing taxonomies and painstaking manual categorization processes and also have a solid history with automated categorization techniques. This experience and expertise put Factiva at the leading edge of developing and applying categorization technology today. This paper will update readers about enhancements made to the Factiva Intelligent IndexingT taxonomy. It examines the value these enhancements bring to Factiva's news and business information service, and the value brought to clients who license the Factiva taxonomy as a fundamental component of their own Enterprise Knowledge Architecture. There is a behind-the-scenes-look at how Factiva classifies a huge stream of incoming articles published in a variety of formats and languages. The paper concludes with an overview of new Factiva services and solutions that are designed specifically to help clients improve productivity and make solid business decisions by precisely finding information in their own everexpanding content repositories.