Search (52 results, page 1 of 3)

0.029874247 = product of:
  0.119496986 = sum of:
    0.119496986 = sum of:
      0.09516949 = weight(_text_:blogs in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09516949 = score(doc=2672,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.31091204 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04488925 = queryNorm
          0.3060978 = fieldWeight in 2672, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2672)
      0.024327492 = weight(_text_:22 in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024327492 = score(doc=2672,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04488925 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2672, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2672)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die verschiedenen unter dem Schlagwort "Bibliothek 2.0" zusammengefassten neuen Dienste und Komponenten wie etwa Wikis, Tagging-Systeme und Blogs sind seit einiger Zeit in aller Munde und dringen über Fortbildungsveranstaltungen, Konferenzen und Publikationsorgane immer mehr in das deutschsprachige Bibliothekswesen ein. Darüber hinaus gibt es öffentlich geförderte Projekte zu bibliothekarischen 2.0-Themen und sogar ein Projekt, welches sich explizit einen 2.0-Katalog zum Ziel gesetzt hat. In diesem Beitrag soll es nun nicht um die Vorstellung eines weiteren Projekts im Dienste des Themas "Bibliothek 2.0" gehen, ebenso hat dieser Beitrag nicht den Anspruch, die Diskussion über die möglichen Vor- oder Nachteile dieser Thematik auf theoretischer Ebene voranzubringen. Vielmehr wird hier ganz praktisch aus Sicht einer kleinen Universitätsbibliothek, der Bibliothek der Helmut-SchmidtUniversität (HSU) - Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg, aufgezeigt, wie das Thema "Web/Bibliothek 2.0" durchaus neben und in Unterstützung von weiteren nutzerorientierten Servicedienstleistungen auch in kleinen Schritten positive Auswirkungen für die Nutzerinnen und Nutzer haben kann. Der Focus wird dabei auf dem zentralen Arbeits- und Rechercheinstrument der Bibliotheksnutzer liegen, dem Bibliothekskatalog. Speziell wird es darum gehen, wie auf relativ einfache Art und Weise durch Anwendung verschiedener Elemente anderer Dienste und Anbieter sowie das Aufgreifen von Schnittstellen und wenig aufwendigen Verbesserungen, Mehrwert für die Nutzerinnen und Nutzer zu erzielen ist. Ein zentraler Begriff bei fast allen Überlegungen, die im Zusammenhang mit der Verbesserung und Anreicherung des Kataloges stehen, war und ist das Thema "Mash-up". Unter Mashups - ein Begriff, der gerade im Zusammenhang mit dem Thema "Web 2.0" im deutschsprachigen Raum eingeführt und adaptiert wurde - wird das Verfahren bezeichnet, Web-Inhalte neu zu kombinieren. Dabei nutzt man bei und für Mashups offene "APIs" (Application Programming Interfaces, also offene Programmierschnittstellen), die von anderen Web-Anwendungen zur Verfügung gestellt werden.

Date

22. 2.2009 19:40:38

0.018493466 = product of:
  0.073973864 = sum of:
    0.073973864 = weight(_text_:communication in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073973864 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.3816502 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of information; communication; and library science. 4(1998) no.3, S.58-67

0.018493466 = product of:
  0.073973864 = sum of:
    0.073973864 = weight(_text_:communication in 4868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073973864 = score(doc=4868,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.3816502 = fieldWeight in 4868, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4868)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira

0.016181784 = product of:
  0.064727135 = sum of:
    0.064727135 = weight(_text_:communication in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064727135 = score(doc=5612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.33394393 = fieldWeight in 5612, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5612)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Advances in computer and communication technology technology have had an important impact on OPACs. The client server architecture model, the Internet, protocols, and standards such as Z39.50 have resulted in newly designed interfaces which reduce syntactic and semantic knowledge required to conduct effective online searches. Experimental OPACs have been developed in an attempt to assist users in conceptual transformation of their information needs into searchable queries. These experiments are based primarily on determining users' behaviour at the OPAC terminal, which needs much further study. Other non traditional models for storing and retrieving information should be considered to create an intuitive OPAC

0.016181784 = product of:
  0.064727135 = sum of:
    0.064727135 = weight(_text_:communication in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064727135 = score(doc=251,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.33394393 = fieldWeight in 251, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=251)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Catalogers have always had to balance adherence to cataloging rules and authority files with creating cataloging that is current and relevant to users. That dilemma has been complicated in new ways because of user demands in the world of Web 2.0. Standardized cataloging is crucial for communication between computer systems, but patrons now have an expectation of social interaction on the Internet, as evidenced by the popularity of folksonomy. After a description of traditional subject cataloging and folksonomy, this article discusses several institutions where subject cataloging is still used, but where patron interaction is also encouraged. User-generated tags can coexist with controlled vocabulary such as subject headings.

0.016181784 = product of:
  0.064727135 = sum of:
    0.064727135 = weight(_text_:communication in 1879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064727135 = score(doc=1879,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.33394393 = fieldWeight in 1879, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1879)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Many experts have proposed an evolution toward "next generation catalogs," whose main features are partly inspired by commercial websites such as Google or Amazon. This article examines pros and cons of this integration. It also aims to show how a qualitative approach helps to broaden understanding of web communication mechanisms. After discussing some examples of "next generation catalog" features, I analyze the interface of an online catalog responding to different users' information needs and seeking behaviors. In the conclusion I suggest that the right approach to integration is a "translation" (not a "copy and paste") between commercial and library logics.

0.016181784 = product of:
  0.064727135 = sum of:
    0.064727135 = weight(_text_:communication in 4536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064727135 = score(doc=4536,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.33394393 = fieldWeight in 4536, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4536)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Document theory examines the concept of a document and how it can serve with other concepts to understand communication, documentation, information, and knowledge. Knowledge organization itself is in practice based on the arrangement of documents representing concepts and knowledge. The word "document" commonly refers to a text or graphic record, but, in a semiotic perspective, non-graphic objects can also be regarded as signifying and, therefore, as documents. The steady increase in the variety and number of documents since prehistoric times enables the development of communities, the division of labor, and reduction of the constraints of space and time. Documents are related to data, facts, texts, works, information, knowledge, signs, and other documents. Documents have physical (material), cognitive, and social aspects.

0.013076856 = product of:
  0.052307423 = sum of:
    0.052307423 = weight(_text_:communication in 134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052307423 = score(doc=134,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.26986745 = fieldWeight in 134, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=134)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Works and items form documentary entities-packages that contain and may deliver one or more creative, communicative conceptions. At the most basic level a work is a set of ideas created and set into a document using text, with the intention of being communicated to a receiver. Works are essential vehicles for communication of information across temporal and cultural boundaries. As such, works demonstrate the characteristics of signs and symbols. Further, works may have membership in a canon. A taxonomic definition of the work is presented, which encompasses the cultural and documentary characteristics of works. This definition can be seen as a precursor to epistemological understanding of signifying documentary entities. Works and items are joined variously to form documentary entities--packages that contain and may deliver one or more creative, communicative conceptions. At the most basic level a work is a set of ideas created and set into a document using text, with the intention of being communicated to a receiver. A work may have many texts, and may appear in many documents and even in many documentary forms. Marco and Navarro (1993) have suggested that epistemological analysis of the paradigms of knowledge are essential for the design and implementation of cognitive strategies to guide documentary analysis. Such is the case with the understanding of the work component of the documentary entity. Marco and Navarro also assert the usefulness of taxonomy as a key element of the epistemological analysis of paradigms. Works have been variously defined in the literature of information science, knowledge organization, linguistics, musicology, and literary criticism, among others. Works are essential vehicles for communication of information across temporal and cultural boundaries. In this paper a taxonomic definition of the work is presented. This definition encompasses the cultural and documentary characteristics of works. This definition can be seen as a precursor to epistemological understanding of signifying documentary entities

0.012163746 = product of:
  0.048654985 = sum of:
    0.048654985 = product of:
      0.09730997 = sum of:
        0.09730997 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09730997 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

3.10.2000 20:48:22

0.012163746 = product of:
  0.048654985 = sum of:
    0.048654985 = product of:
      0.09730997 = sum of:
        0.09730997 = weight(_text_:22 in 6462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09730997 = score(doc=6462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6462, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library journal. 123(1998) no.19, S.22-24

0.0118961865 = product of:
  0.047584746 = sum of:
    0.047584746 = product of:
      0.09516949 = sum of:
        0.09516949 = weight(_text_:blogs in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09516949 = score(doc=2429,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31091204 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.3060978 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

If one follows any of the major cataloging or library blogs these days, it is obvious that the topic of FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) has increasingly become one of major significance for the library community. What began as a proposed conceptual entity-relationship model for improving the structure of bibliographic records has become a hotly debated topic with many tangled threads that have implications not just for cataloging but for many aspects of libraries and librarianship. In the fall of 2005, the Perseus Project experimented with creating a FRBRized catalog for its current online classics collection, a collection that consists of several hundred classical texts in Greek and Latin as well as reference works and scholarly commentaries regarding these works. In the last two years, with funding from the Mellon Foundation, Perseus has amassed and digitized a growing collection of classical texts (some as image books on our own servers that will eventually be made available through Fedora), and some available through the Open Content Alliance (OCA)2, and created FRBRized cataloging data for these texts. This work was done largely as an experiment to see the potential of the FRBR model for creating a specialized catalog for classics.

0.011558416 = product of:
  0.046233665 = sum of:
    0.046233665 = weight(_text_:communication in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046233665 = score(doc=3225,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.23853138 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

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

0.009122809 = product of:
  0.036491238 = sum of:
    0.036491238 = product of:
      0.072982475 = sum of:
        0.072982475 = weight(_text_:22 in 5352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072982475 = score(doc=5352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5352, 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=5352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

8.10.2000 14:22:27

0.009122809 = product of:
  0.036491238 = sum of:
    0.036491238 = product of:
      0.072982475 = sum of:
        0.072982475 = weight(_text_:22 in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072982475 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 290, 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=290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

6. 1.2007 14:49:22

0.009122809 = product of:
  0.036491238 = sum of:
    0.036491238 = product of:
      0.072982475 = sum of:
        0.072982475 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072982475 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2622, 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=2622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)

0.00892214 = product of:
  0.03568856 = sum of:
    0.03568856 = product of:
      0.07137712 = sum of:
        0.07137712 = weight(_text_:blogs in 4530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07137712 = score(doc=4530,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31091204 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.22957335 = fieldWeight in 4530, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4530)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in Mitt VÖB 64(2011) H.1, S.151-153 (S. Breitling): "Wie sieht die Rolle der Katalogisierung im 21. Jahrhundert aus? In diversen Blogs und Mailinglisten wird darüber seit geraumer Zeit diskutiert. Der Bereich Katalogisierung befindet sich in einer Phase tiefgreifenden Wandels, ausgelöst durch eine Vielzahl von Faktoren, von denen veränderte Nutzererwartungen bei der Recherche und die wachsende Menge an neuen zu katalogisierenden Materialien (e-Books, Web-Ressourcen etc.) und Formaten nur zwei Aspekte darstellen. Das technische Umfeld wird nicht zuletzt durch fortgeschrittene Möglichkeiten im Bereich Retrieval und Präsentation geprägt. Wie schafft man es, dass Katalogisierung als Teil des gesamten Bibliothekswesens relevant und zeitgemäß bleibt? Welche der in Jahrzehnten Katalogisierungspraxis erarbeiteten Standards sind erhaltenswert, und welche sind im Hinblick auf den Fortschritt der IT und ein mögliches Semantic Web vielleicht gar nicht mehr nötig oder müssen an die Gegebenheiten angepasst werden? Mit diesen und anderen Fragen beschäftigt sich die Aufsatzsammlung "Conversations with catalogers in the 21st century". In der Community bekannte Personen wie Martha Yee, Christine Schwartz oder James Weinheimer kommen zu Wort, aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum Bernhard Eversberg, Entwickler des Bibliothekssystems Allegro.

0.008007906 = product of:
  0.032031626 = sum of:
    0.032031626 = weight(_text_:communication in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032031626 = score(doc=1973,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.16525939 = fieldWeight in 1973, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1973)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Weitere Rez. in JASIST 59(2008) H.9, S.1531-1533 (J. Satyanesan): "Libraries and Google is an interesting and enlightening compilation of 18 articles on Google and its impact on libraries. The topic is very current, debatable, and thought provoking. Google has profoundly empowered individuals and transformed access to information and librarians are very much concerned about its popularity and visibility. In this book, the leading authorities discuss the usefulness of Google, its influence and potential menace to libraries, and its implications for libraries and the scholarly communication. They offer practical suggestions to cope with the changing situation. The articles are written from different perspective and express all shades of opinion, both hopeful and fearful. One can discern varied moods-apprehension, resignation, encouragement, and motivation-on the part of the librarians. This is an important book providing a wealth of information for the 21st century librarian. There is a section called "Indexing, Abstracting & Website/Internet Coverage," which lists major indexing and abstracting services and other tools for bibliographic access. The format of the articles is uniform with an introduction, key words, and with the exception of two articles the rest have summaries and conclusions. References and notes of varying lengths are included in each article. This book has been copublished simultaneously as Internet Reference Quarterly, 10(3/4), 2005. Although there are single articles written on Google and libraries, this is the first book-length treatment of the topic.

LCSH

Communication in learning and scholarship / Technological innovations

Subject

Communication in learning and scholarship / Technological innovations

0.007602342 = product of:
  0.030409368 = sum of:
    0.030409368 = product of:
      0.060818736 = sum of:
        0.060818736 = weight(_text_:22 in 2268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060818736 = score(doc=2268,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2268, 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=2268)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 22(1998) H.2, S.235-243

0.007602342 = product of:
  0.030409368 = sum of:
    0.030409368 = product of:
      0.060818736 = sum of:
        0.060818736 = weight(_text_:22 in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060818736 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4608, 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=4608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.007602342 = product of:
  0.030409368 = sum of:
    0.030409368 = product of:
      0.060818736 = sum of:
        0.060818736 = weight(_text_:22 in 2411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060818736 = score(doc=2411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2411, 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=2411)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 4.2020 20:22:29