Search (7737 results, page 387 of 387)

  1. Mostafa, J.: Bessere Suchmaschinen für das Web (2006) 0.00
    0.0035286434 = product of:
      0.007057287 = sum of:
        0.007057287 = product of:
          0.014114574 = sum of:
            0.014114574 = weight(_text_:22 in 4871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.014114574 = score(doc=4871,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052088603 = queryNorm
                0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 4871, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=4871)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 1.2006 18:34:49
  2. Information visualization in data mining and knowledge discovery (2002) 0.00
    0.0035286434 = product of:
      0.007057287 = sum of:
        0.007057287 = product of:
          0.014114574 = sum of:
            0.014114574 = weight(_text_:22 in 1789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.014114574 = score(doc=1789,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052088603 = queryNorm
                0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1789, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1789)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    23. 3.2008 19:10:22
  3. Roth, G.; Merkel, G.: Haltet den Richter! : Schuld und Strafe (2010) 0.00
    0.0035286434 = product of:
      0.007057287 = sum of:
        0.007057287 = product of:
          0.014114574 = sum of:
            0.014114574 = weight(_text_:22 in 3682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.014114574 = score(doc=3682,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052088603 = queryNorm
                0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 3682, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3682)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Footnote
    Erwiderung auf: Hassemer, W.: Haltet den geborenen Dieb! In:FAZ vom 15.06.2010. Vgl. die Erwiderung: Walter, M.: Unzulässige Überinterpretation: Schuld und Strafe. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.xxx vom 05.07.2010, S.xx. Vgl. auch: Janich, P.: Stillschweigende Hirngespinste: Die FR-Debatte zur Willensfreiheit. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.158 vom 12.07.2010, S.20-21. Lüderssen, K.: Wer determiniert die Hirnforscher?: Was ist Willensfreiheit (4). [Interview]. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.164 vom 19.07.2010, S.20-21. Pauen, M.: Das Schuldprinzip antasten, ohne es abzuschaffen: Was ist Willensfreiheit (5) oder: Wer ist verantwortlich für die Abschaffung von Verantwortung?. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.170 vom 26.07.2010, S.22-23. Vgl.: http://www.fr-online.de/in_und_ausland/kultur_und_medien/themen/?em_cnt=2788472&em_loc=3643.
  4. Jörn, F.: Wie Google für uns nach der ominösen Gluonenkraft stöbert : Software-Krabbler machen sich vor der Anfrage auf die Suche - Das Netz ist etwa fünfhundertmal größer als alles Durchforschte (2001) 0.00
    0.0035286434 = product of:
      0.007057287 = sum of:
        0.007057287 = product of:
          0.014114574 = sum of:
            0.014114574 = weight(_text_:22 in 3684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.014114574 = score(doc=3684,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052088603 = queryNorm
                0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 3684, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3684)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 6.2005 9:52:00
  5. Walter, M.: Unzulässige Überinterpretation : Schuld und Strafe (2010) 0.00
    0.0035286434 = product of:
      0.007057287 = sum of:
        0.007057287 = product of:
          0.014114574 = sum of:
            0.014114574 = weight(_text_:22 in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.014114574 = score(doc=3686,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052088603 = queryNorm
                0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 3686, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3686)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Footnote
    Erwiderung auf: Roth, G., G. Merkel: Haltet den Richter!: Schuld und Strafe. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.xxx vom 26.06.2010, S.xx. Bezugnahme auf: Hassemer, W.: Haltet den geborenen Dieb! In:FAZ vom 15.06.2010. Vgl. Erwiderung: Janich, P.: Stillschweigende Hirngespinste: Die FR-Debatte zur Willensfreiheit. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.158 vom 12.07.2010, S.20-21. Vgl. Fortsetzung: Lüderssen, K.: Wer determiniert die Hirnforscher?: Was ist Willensfreiheit (4). [Interview]. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.164 vom 19.07.2010, S.20-21. Pauen, M.: Das Schuldprinzip antasten, ohne es abzuschaffen: Was ist Willensfreiheit (5) oder: Wer ist verantwortlich für die Abschaffung von Verantwortung?. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.170 vom 26.07.2010, S.22-23. Vgl.: http://www.fr-online.de/top_news/?em_cnt=2814820&em_loc=2091.
  6. Lüderssen, K.: Wer determiniert die Hirnforscher? : Was ist Willensfreiheit (4) (2010) 0.00
    0.0035286434 = product of:
      0.007057287 = sum of:
        0.007057287 = product of:
          0.014114574 = sum of:
            0.014114574 = weight(_text_:22 in 3711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.014114574 = score(doc=3711,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052088603 = queryNorm
                0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 3711, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3711)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Footnote
    Bezugnahme auf: Hassemer, W.: Haltet den geborenen Dieb! In: FAZ vom 15.06.2010. Erwiderung auf: Roth, G., G. Merkel: Haltet den Richter!: Schuld und Strafe. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.xxx vom 26.06.2010, S.xx. Walter, M.: Unzulässige Überinterpretation: Schuld und Strafe. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.xxx vom 05.07.2010, S.xx. Janich, P.: Stillschweigende Hirngespinste: Die FR-Debatte zur Willensfreiheit. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.158 vom 12.07.2010, S.20-21. Vgl. auch: Pauen, M.: Das Schuldprinzip antasten, ohne es abzuschaffen: Was ist Willensfreiheit (5) oder: Wer ist verantwortlich für die Abschaffung von Verantwortung?. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.170 vom 26.07.2010, S.22-23. Vgl.: http://www.fr-online.de/in_und_ausland/kultur_und_medien/feuilleton/?em_cnt=2860706&em_loc=89.
  7. Janich, P.: Stillschweigende Hirngespinste : Die FR-Debatte zur Willensfreiheit (2010) 0.00
    0.0035286434 = product of:
      0.007057287 = sum of:
        0.007057287 = product of:
          0.014114574 = sum of:
            0.014114574 = weight(_text_:22 in 3712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.014114574 = score(doc=3712,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052088603 = queryNorm
                0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 3712, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3712)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Footnote
    Bezugnahme auf: Hassemer, W.: Haltet den geborenen Dieb! In: FAZ vom 15.06.2010. Erwiderung auf: Roth, G., G. Merkel: Haltet den Richter!: Schuld und Strafe. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.xxx vom 26.06.2010, S.xx. Walter, M.: Unzulässige Überinterpretation: Schuld und Strafe. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.xxx vom 05.07.2010, S.xx. Vgl. Fortsetzung: Lüderssen, K.: Wer determiniert die Hirnforscher?: Was ist Willensfreiheit (4). [Interview]. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.164 vom 19.07.2010, S.20-21. Pauen, M.: Das Schuldprinzip antasten, ohne es abzuschaffen: Was ist Willensfreiheit (5) oder: Wer ist verantwortlich für die Abschaffung von Verantwortung?. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.170 vom 26.07.2010, S.22-23. Vgl.: http://www.fr-online.de/in_und_ausland/kultur_und_medien/feuilleton/?em_cnt=2837272&em_loc=89.
  8. Pauen, M.: ¬Das Schuldprinzip antasten, ohne es abzuschaffen : Was ist Willensfreiheit (5) oder: Wer ist verantwortlich für die Abschaffung von Verantwortung? (2010) 0.00
    0.0035286434 = product of:
      0.007057287 = sum of:
        0.007057287 = product of:
          0.014114574 = sum of:
            0.014114574 = weight(_text_:22 in 3720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.014114574 = score(doc=3720,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052088603 = queryNorm
                0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 3720, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3720)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.170 vom 26.07.2010, S.22-23
  9. Bormann, F.-J.: Verantwortung und Verdrängung : Was ist Willensfreiheit (6): Die theologische Ethik versucht, menschliche Spielräume realistisch zu vermessen (2010) 0.00
    0.0035286434 = product of:
      0.007057287 = sum of:
        0.007057287 = product of:
          0.014114574 = sum of:
            0.014114574 = weight(_text_:22 in 3908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.014114574 = score(doc=3908,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052088603 = queryNorm
                0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 3908, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3908)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Footnote
    Bezugnahme auf: Hassemer, W.: Haltet den geborenen Dieb! In: FAZ vom 15.06.2010. Erwiderung auf: Roth, G., G. Merkel: Haltet den Richter!: Schuld und Strafe. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.xxx vom 26.06.2010, S.xx. Walter, M.: Unzulässige Überinterpretation: Schuld und Strafe. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.xxx vom 05.07.2010, S.xx. Janich, P.: Stillschweigende Hirngespinste: Die FR-Debatte zur Willensfreiheit. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.158 vom 12.07.2010, S.20-21. Lüderssen, K.: Wer determiniert die Hirnforscher?: Was ist Willensfreiheit (4) [Interview]. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.164 vom 19.07.2010, S.20-21. Pauen, M.: Das Schuldprinzip antasten, ohne es abzuschaffen: Was ist Willensfreiheit (5) oder: Wer ist verantwortlich für die Abschaffung von Verantwortung?. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.170 vom 26.07.2010, S.22-23. Fortsetzung: Wingert, L.: An der Realität vorbei: Was ist Willensfreiheit (7): Weder Oberhoheit noch Separatismus: Über die Hirnforschung und ihre Ansprüche. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.182 vom 9.8.2010, S.20-21. Vgl. auch: Dahl, E., M. Pauen: Schuld und freier Wille. In: Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2010, H.6, S.72-79. Vgl.: http://www.fr-online.de/kultur/verantwortung-und-verdraengung/-/1472786/4522900/-/index.html.
  10. Wingert, L.: An der Realität vorbei : Was ist Willensfreiheit (7): Weder Oberhoheit noch Separatismus: Über die Hirnforschung und ihre Ansprüche (2010) 0.00
    0.0035286434 = product of:
      0.007057287 = sum of:
        0.007057287 = product of:
          0.014114574 = sum of:
            0.014114574 = weight(_text_:22 in 3909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.014114574 = score(doc=3909,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052088603 = queryNorm
                0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 3909, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3909)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Footnote
    Bezugnahme auf: Hassemer, W.: Haltet den geborenen Dieb! In: FAZ vom 15.06.2010. Erwiderung auf: Roth, G., G. Merkel: Haltet den Richter!: Schuld und Strafe. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.xxx vom 26.06.2010, S.xx. Walter, M.: Unzulässige Überinterpretation: Schuld und Strafe. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.xxx vom 05.07.2010, S.xx. Janich, P.: Stillschweigende Hirngespinste: Die FR-Debatte zur Willensfreiheit. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.158 vom 12.07.2010, S.20-21. Lüderssen, K.: Wer determiniert die Hirnforscher?: Was ist Willensfreiheit (4) [Interview]. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.164 vom 19.07.2010, S.20-21. Pauen, M.: Das Schuldprinzip antasten, ohne es abzuschaffen: Was ist Willensfreiheit (5) oder: Wer ist verantwortlich für die Abschaffung von Verantwortung?. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.170 vom 26.07.2010, S.22-23. Bormann, F.-J.: Verantwortung und Verdrängung: Was ist Willensfreiheit (6): Die theologische Ethik versucht, menschliche Spielräume realistisch zu vermessen. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.176 vom 2.8.2010, S.20-21. Vgl. auch: Dahl, E., M. Pauen: Schuld und freier Wille. In: Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2010, H.6, S.72-79. Vgl.: http://www.fr-online.de/kultur/an-der-realitaet-vorbei/-/1472786/4540406/-/index.html.
  11. Reinartz, B.: Zwei Augen der Erkenntnis : Gehirnforscher behaupten, das bewusste Ich als Zentrum der Persönlichkeit sei nur eine raffinierte Täuschung (2002) 0.00
    0.0035286434 = product of:
      0.007057287 = sum of:
        0.007057287 = product of:
          0.014114574 = sum of:
            0.014114574 = weight(_text_:22 in 3917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.014114574 = score(doc=3917,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052088603 = queryNorm
                0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 3917, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3917)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    17. 7.1996 9:33:22
  12. Gonzalez, L.: What is FRBR? (2005) 0.00
    0.0031052951 = product of:
      0.0062105902 = sum of:
        0.0062105902 = product of:
          0.0124211805 = sum of:
            0.0124211805 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0124211805 = score(doc=3401,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052088603 = queryNorm
                0.072590135 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Content
    National FRBR experiments The larger the bibliographic database, the greater the effect of "FRBR-like" design in reducing the appearance of duplicate records. LC, RLG, and OCLC, all influenced by FRBR, are experimenting with the redesign of their databases. LC's Network Development and MARC Standards Office has posted at its web site the results of some of its investigations into FRBR and MARC, including possible display options for bibliographic information. The design of RLG's public catalog, RedLightGreen, has been described as "FRBR-ish" by Merrilee Proffitt, RLG's program officer. If you try a search for a prolific author or much-published title in RedLightGreen, you'll probably find that the display of search results is much different than what you would expect. OCLC Research has developed a prototype "frbrized" database for fiction, OCLC FictionFinder. Try a title search for a classic title like Romeo and Juliet and observe that OCLC includes, in the initial display of results (described as "works"), a graphic indicator (stars, ranging from one to five). These show in rough terms how many libraries own the work-Romeo and Juliet clearly gets a five. Indicators like this are something resource sharing staff can consider an "ILL quality rating." If you're intrigued by FRBR's possibilities and what they could mean to resource sharing workflow, start talking. Now is the time to connect with colleagues, your local and/or consortial system vendor, RLG, OCLC, and your professional organizations. Have input into how systems develop in the FRBR world."
  13. Boeuf, P. le: Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) : hype or cure-all (2005) 0.00
    0.0031052951 = product of:
      0.0062105902 = sum of:
        0.0062105902 = product of:
          0.0124211805 = sum of:
            0.0124211805 = weight(_text_:libraries in 175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0124211805 = score(doc=175,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052088603 = queryNorm
                0.072590135 = fieldWeight in 175, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=175)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Footnote
    What is, after all the FRBR model? The question is asked in the subtitle itself: is it a "hype or cureall?" It certainly is the talk of the day in libraries and similar institutions, a very popular topic for professional meetings, a challenging task for system vendors and food for thought for scholars both in terminology and in content. As for the solutions it offers, they enable simplified and more structured catalogues of large collections and perhaps easier ways to cataloguing resources of many different types. Once implemented in catalogues, the benefits will be both on the librarian's side and on the end user's side. According to Patrick LeBoeuf the model is a beginning and there are two directions for its development as far as the authors of the articles imply: the first, oriented to the configuration of FRANAR or FRAR, the second, oriented to what has already been established and defined as FRSAR (Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records). The latter is meant to build a conceptual model for Group 3 entities within the FRBR framework related to the aboutness of the work and assist in an assessment of the potential for international sharing and use of subject authority data both within the library sector and beyond. A third direction, not present in the work considered, yet mentioned by the editor, is oriented towards the development of "the CIDOC CRM semantic model for cultural heritage information in museums and assimilated institutions" (p. 6). By merging the FRBR working group with the CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group a FRBR/CRM Harmonization Group has been created its scope being the "translation" of FRBR into object-oriented formalism. The work under review is the expected and welcome completion of the FRBR Final Report of 1998, addressing librarians, library science teaching staff, students, and library system vendors, a comprehensive source of information on theoretical aspects and practical application of the FRBR conceptual model. A good companion clarifying many FRBR issues the collection is remarkably well structured and offers a step-by-step insight into the model. An additional feature of the work is the very helpful index at the back of the book providing an easy access to the main topics discussed."
  14. Crowley, W.: Spanning the theory-practice divide in library and information science (2005) 0.00
    0.0031052951 = product of:
      0.0062105902 = sum of:
        0.0062105902 = product of:
          0.0124211805 = sum of:
            0.0124211805 = weight(_text_:libraries in 439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0124211805 = score(doc=439,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052088603 = queryNorm
                0.072590135 = fieldWeight in 439, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=439)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Footnote
    "Theory and Revelation" is devoted to encouraging LIS researchers, in any capacity, not to dismiss the role of faith, beliefs, and religion. The ending section presents "A Nine-Step Model for Pragmatic Research," which stops just short of being a "how-to" by not elucidating on the methodological considerations for each step. The model, while textual, bears a striking resemblance to the flow charts for approaching research found in many research instructional works, even though the entertaining of "solutions" to problems is an iterative element of the process. The text concludes with "The Foundations for Building Bridges," a fivepage summary section, almost woefully inadequate given the substantial issues developed and presented throughout the work. Crowley must be commended for his comprehensive approach to the subject, the detailed annotations, the glossary, the summary of works cited, and the index. The format of starting each chapter with a themed scenario prevented the writing from becoming dry and sleepinducing. Most of the chapters end with a specific section addressing how the issues relate to LIS. The overall structure of the text follows logically from the more theoretical to the more applicable. However, there is a definite bias towards occurrences where practitioners and academicians tend to co-exist and function in a research environment, i.e., library science and academic institutions. Information professionals working in public and community college libraries are discussed in a rather superficial manner. How cultural pragmatism can influence research and theory centered in the information science domain must still be considered in more depth than presented in this text. Further expansion on, and a critical analysis of, cultural pragmatism as a metatheoretical perspective is definitely in order. Hopefully, Spanning the Theory-Practice Divide in Library and Information Science will be an introduction to the use of cultural pragmatism in LIS research and in the development of useful theory. In response to an e-mail from me upon first reading the text, the author informed me of his contact with several other doctoral students interested in furthering their understanding of cultural pragmatism. Inspiring other professionals is certainly a testament to the value of the work and supports my recommendation for this text as essential reading for LIS professionals interested in producing research and theory that are truly useful."
  15. Mossberger, K.; Tolbert, C.J.; Stansbury, M.: Virtual inequality : beyond the digital divide (2003) 0.00
    0.0031052951 = product of:
      0.0062105902 = sum of:
        0.0062105902 = product of:
          0.0124211805 = sum of:
            0.0124211805 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0124211805 = score(doc=1795,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052088603 = queryNorm
                0.072590135 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Footnote
    Rez. in: JASIST 55(2004) no.5, S.467-468 (W. Koehler): "Virtual Inequality is an important contribution to the digital divide debate. That debate takes two basic forms. One centers an the divide between the "information rich" developed countries and the "information poor" developing countries. The second is concerned with the rift between information "haves" and "have-nots" within countries. This book addresses the latter domain and is concerned with the digital divide in the United States. This book is the product of a cross-disciplinary collaboration. Mossberger and Tolbert are both members of the Kent State University political science department while Stansbury is an the Library and Information Science faculty. The book is extremely well documented. Perhaps the chapter an the democracy divide and e-government is the best done, reflecting the political science bent of two of the authors. E-government is very well covered. Unfortunately, e-commerce and e-education go virtually unmentioned. If e-government is important to defining the digital divide, then certainly e-commerce and e-education are as well. Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury argue that the digital divide should be described as four different divides: the access divide, the skills divide, the economic opportunity divide, and the democratic divide. Each of these divides is developed in its own chapter. Each chapter draws well an the existing literature. The book is valuable if for no other reason than that it provides an excellent critique of the current state of the understanding of the digital divide in the United States. It is particularly good in its contrast of the approaches taken by the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. Perhaps this is a function of the multidisciplinary strength of the book's authorship, for indeed it shows here. The access divide is defined along "connectivity" lines: who has access to digital technologies. The authors tonfirm the conventional wisdom that age and education are important predictors of in-home access, but they also argue that rate and ethnicity are also factors (pp. 32-33): Asian Americans have greatest access followed by whites, Latinos, and African Americans in that order. Most access the Internet from home or work, followed by friends' computers, libraries, and other access points. The skills divide is defined as technical competence and information literacy (p. 38). Variation was found along technical competence for age, education, affluence, rate, and ethnicity, but not gender (p. 47). The authors conclude that for the most part the skills divide mirrors the access divide (p. 55). While they found no gender difference, they did find a gender preference for skills acquisition: males prefer a more impersonal delivery ("online help and tutorials") while females prefer more personal instruction (p. 56).
  16. Broughton, V.: Essential classification (2004) 0.00
    0.0031052951 = product of:
      0.0062105902 = sum of:
        0.0062105902 = product of:
          0.0124211805 = sum of:
            0.0124211805 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0124211805 = score(doc=2824,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052088603 = queryNorm
                0.072590135 = fieldWeight in 2824, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2824)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Footnote
    Rez. in: KO 32(2005) no.1, S.47-49 (M. Hudon): "Vanda Broughton's Essential Classification is the most recent addition to a very small set of classification textbooks published over the past few years. The book's 21 chapters are based very closely an the cataloguing and classification module at the School of Library, Archive, and Information studies at University College, London. The author's main objective is clear: this is "first and foremost a book about how to classify. The emphasis throughout is an the activity of classification rather than the theory, the practical problems of the organization of collections, and the needs of the users" (p. 1). This is not a theoretical work, but a basic course in classification and classification scheme application. For this reviewer, who also teaches "Classification 101," this is also a fascinating peek into how a colleague organizes content and structures her course. "Classification is everywhere" (p. 1): the first sentence of this book is also one of the first statements in my own course, and Professor Broughton's metaphors - the supermarket, canned peas, flowers, etc. - are those that are used by our colleagues around the world. The combination of tone, writing style and content display are reader-friendly; they are in fact what make this book remarkable and what distinguishes it from more "formal" textbooks, such as The Organization of Information, the superb text written and recently updated (2004) by Professor Arlene Taylor (2nd ed. Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2004). Reading Essential Classification, at times, feels like being in a classroom, facing a teacher who assures you that "you don't need to worry about this at this stage" (p. 104), and reassures you that, although you now speed a long time looking for things, "you will soon speed up when you get to know the scheme better" (p. 137). This teacher uses redundancy in a productive fashion, and she is not afraid to express her own opinions ("I think that if these concepts are helpful they may be used" (p. 245); "It's annoying that LCC doesn't provide clearer instructions, but if you keep your head and take them one step at a time [i.e. the tables] they're fairly straightforward" (p. 174)). Chapters 1 to 7 present the essential theoretical concepts relating to knowledge organization and to bibliographic classification. The author is adept at making and explaining distinctions: known-item retrieval versus subject retrieval, personal versus public/shared/official classification systems, scientific versus folk classification systems, object versus aspect classification systems, semantic versus syntactic relationships, and so on. Chapters 8 and 9 discuss the practice of classification, through content analysis and subject description. A short discussion of difficult subjects, namely the treatment of unique concepts (persons, places, etc.) as subjects seems a little advanced for a beginners' class.
  17. Bruce, H.: ¬The user's view of the Internet (2002) 0.00
    0.0026464823 = product of:
      0.0052929646 = sum of:
        0.0052929646 = product of:
          0.010585929 = sum of:
            0.010585929 = weight(_text_:22 in 4344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.010585929 = score(doc=4344,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052088603 = queryNorm
                0.058035173 = fieldWeight in 4344, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.01171875 = fieldNorm(doc=4344)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Footnote
    Chapter 2 (Technology and People) focuses an several theories of technological acceptance and diffusion. Unfortunately, Bruce's presentation is somewhat confusing as he moves from one theory to next, never quite connecting them into a logical sequence or coherent whole. Two theories are of particular interest to Bruce: the Theory of Diffusion of Innovations and the Theory of Planned Behavior. The Theory of Diffusion of Innovations is an "information-centric view of technology acceptance" in which technology adopters are placed in the information flows of society from which they learn about innovations and "drive innovation adoption decisions" (p. 20). The Theory of Planned Behavior maintains that the "performance of a behavior is a joint function of intentions and perceived behavioral control" (i.e., how muck control a person thinks they have) (pp. 22-23). Bruce combines these two theories to form the basis for the Technology Acceptance Model. This model posits that "an individual's acceptance of information technology is based an beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors" (p. 24). In all these theories and models echoes a recurring theme: "individual perceptions of the innovation or technology are critical" in terms of both its characteristics and its use (pp. 24-25). From these, in turn, Bruce derives a predictive theory of the role personal perceptions play in technology adoption: Personal Innovativeness of Information Technology Adoption (PIITA). Personal inventiveness is defined as "the willingness of an individual to try out any new information technology" (p. 26). In general, the PIITA theory predicts that information technology will be adopted by individuals that have a greater exposure to mass media, rely less an the evaluation of information technology by others, exhibit a greater ability to cope with uncertainty and take risks, and requires a less positive perception of an information technology prior to its adoption. Chapter 3 (A Focus an Usings) introduces the User-Centered Paradigm (UCP). The UCP is characteristic of the shift of emphasis from technology to users as the driving force behind technology and research agendas for Internet development [for a dissenting view, see Andrew Dillion's (2003) challenge to the utility of user-centerness for design guidance]. It entails the "broad acceptance of the user-oriented perspective across a range of disciplines and professional fields," such as business, education, cognitive engineering, and information science (p. 34).

Authors

Languages

Types

  • a 6420
  • m 793
  • el 363
  • s 349
  • r 64
  • b 54
  • i 54
  • x 42
  • ? 12
  • p 9
  • n 7
  • d 3
  • h 3
  • u 2
  • z 2
  • au 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications