Search (184 results, page 1 of 10)

0.37031868 = product of:
  0.74063736 = sum of:
    0.10580534 = product of:
      0.317416 = sum of:
        0.317416 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.317416 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33886743 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039970156 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.317416 = weight(_text_:2f in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.317416 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33886743 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
    0.317416 = weight(_text_:2f in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.317416 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33886743 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.29625493 = product of:
  0.59250987 = sum of:
    0.08464427 = product of:
      0.2539328 = sum of:
        0.2539328 = weight(_text_:3a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2539328 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33886743 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039970156 = queryNorm
            0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.2539328 = weight(_text_:2f in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2539328 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33886743 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
    0.2539328 = weight(_text_:2f in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2539328 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33886743 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Ftannerlectures.utah.edu%2F_documents%2Fa-to-z%2Fp%2Fpopper80.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3f4QRTEH-OEBmoYr2J_c7H

0.18515934 = product of:
  0.37031868 = sum of:
    0.05290267 = product of:
      0.158708 = sum of:
        0.158708 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.158708 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33886743 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039970156 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.158708 = weight(_text_:2f in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.158708 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33886743 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
    0.158708 = weight(_text_:2f in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.158708 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33886743 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Footnote

Vgl. unter: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizweHljdbcAhVS16QKHXcFD9QQFjABegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F271200105_Die_Autonomie_des_Menschen_und_der_Maschine_-_gegenwartige_Definitionen_von_Autonomie_zwischen_philosophischem_Hintergrund_und_technologischer_Umsetzbarkeit_Redigierte_Version_der_Magisterarbeit_Karls&usg=AOvVaw06orrdJmFF2xbCCp_hL26q.

0.12864499 = product of:
  0.38593495 = sum of:
    0.19656177 = weight(_text_:united in 7837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19656177 = score(doc=7837,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.8765801 = fieldWeight in 7837, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7837)
    0.18937318 = weight(_text_:states in 7837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18937318 = score(doc=7837,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.86040187 = fieldWeight in 7837, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7837)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

0.07718699 = product of:
  0.23156096 = sum of:
    0.11793706 = weight(_text_:united in 1152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11793706 = score(doc=1152,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.52594805 = fieldWeight in 1152, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1152)
    0.1136239 = weight(_text_:states in 1152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1136239 = score(doc=1152,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.5162411 = fieldWeight in 1152, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1152)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Encoded Archival Description (EAD) is an emerging standard used internationally in an increasing number of archives and manuscripts libraries to encode data describing corporate records and personal papers. The individual descriptions are variously called finding aids, guides, handlists, or catalogs. While archival description shares many objectives with bibliographic description, it differs from it in several essential ways. From its inception, EAD was based on SGML, and, with the release of EAD version 1.0 in 1998, it is also compliant with XML. EAD was, and continues to be, developed by the archival community. While development was initiated in the United States, international interest and contribution are increasing. EAD is currently administered and maintained jointly by the Society of American Archivists and the United States Library of Congress. Developers are currently exploring ways to internationalize the administration and maintenance of EAD to reflect and represent the expanding base of users.

0.07277259 = product of:
  0.21831778 = sum of:
    0.11119213 = weight(_text_:united in 829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11119213 = score(doc=829,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.4958686 = fieldWeight in 829, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=829)
    0.10712565 = weight(_text_:states in 829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10712565 = score(doc=829,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.48671678 = fieldWeight in 829, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=829)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Constructivism in the social sciences has known several ups and downs over the last decades. It was successful rather early in sociology but hotly contested in International Politics/Relations (IR). Oddly enough, just at the moments it made important inroads into the research agenda and became accepted by the mainstream, the enthusiasm for it waned. Many constructivists-as did mainstream scholars-moved from "grand theory" or even "meta-theory" toward "normal science," or experimented with other (eclectic) approaches, of which the turns to practices, to emotions, to new materialism, to the visual, and to the queer are some of the latest manifestations. In a way, constructivism was "successful," on the one hand, by introducing norms, norm-dynamics, and diffusion; the role of new actors in world politics; and the changing role of institutions into the debates, while losing, on the other hand, much of its critical potential. The latter survived only on the fringes-and in Europe more than in the United States. In IR, curiously, constructivism, which was rooted in various European traditions (philosophy, history, linguistics, social analysis), was originally introduced in Europe via the disciplinary discussions taking place in the United States. Yet, especially in its critical version, it has found a more conducive environment in Europe than in the United States.
In the United States, soon after its emergence, constructivism became "mainstreamed" by having its analysis of norms reduced to "variable research." In such research, positive examples of for instance the spread of norms were included, but strangely empirical evidence of counterexamples of norm "deaths" (preventive strikes, unlawful combatants, drone strikes, extrajudicial killings) were not. The elective affinity of constructivism and humanitarianism seemed to have transformed the former into the Enlightenment project of "progress." Even Kant was finally pressed into the service of "liberalism" in the U.S. discussion, and his notion of the "practical interest of reason" morphed into the political project of an "end of history." This "slant" has prevented a serious conceptual engagement with the "history" of law and (inter-)national politics and the epistemological problems that are raised thereby. This bowdlerization of constructivism is further buttressed by the fact that in the "knowledge industry" none of the "leading" U.S. departments has a constructivist on board, ensuring thereby the narrowness of conceptual and methodological choices to which the future "professionals" are exposed. This article contextualizes constructivism and its emergence within a changing world and within the evolution of the discipline. The aim is not to provide a definition or a typology of constructivism, since such efforts go against the critical dimension of constructivism. An application of this critique on constructivism itself leads to a reflection on truth, knowledge, and the need for (re-)orientation.

0.066093765 = product of:
  0.19828129 = sum of:
    0.11793706 = weight(_text_:united in 5018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11793706 = score(doc=5018,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.52594805 = fieldWeight in 5018, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5018)
    0.08034424 = weight(_text_:states in 5018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08034424 = score(doc=5018,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.3650376 = fieldWeight in 5018, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5018)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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.

0.045482874 = product of:
  0.13644862 = sum of:
    0.06949508 = weight(_text_:united in 130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06949508 = score(doc=130,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 130, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=130)
    0.06695353 = weight(_text_:states in 130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06695353 = score(doc=130,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.304198 = fieldWeight in 130, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=130)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

A large on-going activity for digitization, dissemination and preservation of cultural heritage is taking place in Europe, United States and the world, which involves all types of cultural institutions, i.e., galleries, libraries, museums, archives and all types of cultural content. The development of Europeana, as a single point of access to European Cultural Heritage, has probably been the most important result of the activities in the field till now. Semantic interoperability, linked open data, user involvement and user generated content are key issues in these developments. This paper presents a system that provides content providers and users the ability to map, in an effective way, their own metadata schemas to common domain standards and the Europeana (ESE, EDM) data models. The system is currently largely used by many European research projects and the Europeana. Based on these mappings, semantic query answering techniques are proposed as a means for effective access to digital cultural heritage, providing users with content enrichment, linking of data based on their involvement and facilitating content search and retrieval. An experimental study is presented, involving content from national content aggregators, as well as thematic content aggregators and the Europeana, which illustrates the proposed system

0.045482874 = product of:
  0.13644862 = sum of:
    0.06949508 = weight(_text_:united in 3865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06949508 = score(doc=3865,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 3865, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3865)
    0.06695353 = weight(_text_:states in 3865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06695353 = score(doc=3865,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.304198 = fieldWeight in 3865, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3865)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Epistemic communities can be understood as networks of knowledge - based experts that hold in common a set of principled and causal beliefs, have shared notions of validity, exchange knowledge, and shape, demarcate, and articulate the identities of present and future knowledge producers. In Knowledge Organization, epistemic communities have been likened to the term "domain" in the domain - analytic paradigm. Acknowledging the important role that ISKO C - US, the International Society for Knowledge Organization: Chapter for Canada and United States, plays in the international production of scientific knowledge, we aim to characterize this epistemic community based on the publications of the five North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO) meetings proceedings. The results allow us to conclude that the ISKO C - US community is a productive, dialogical, and a continuously well - developed community with a well - balanced trajectory between an epistemological dimension, in search of its theoretical and methodological bases, and a social dimension, considering different cultural backgrounds. These aspects demarcate and shape the road for future research on knowledge organization.

0.045482874 = product of:
  0.13644862 = sum of:
    0.06949508 = weight(_text_:united in 3897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06949508 = score(doc=3897,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 3897, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3897)
    0.06695353 = weight(_text_:states in 3897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06695353 = score(doc=3897,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.304198 = fieldWeight in 3897, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3897)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The Early American Cookbooks digital project is a case study in analyzing collections as data using HathiTrust and the HathiTrust Research Center (HTRC) Portal. The purposes of the project are to create a freely available, searchable collection of full-text early American cookbooks within the HathiTrust Digital Library, to offer an overview of the scope and contents of the collection, and to analyze trends and patterns in the metadata and the full text of the collection. The digital project has two basic components: a collection of 1450 full-text cookbooks published in the United States between 1800 and 1920 and a website to present a guide to the collection and the results of the analysis. This article will focus on the workflow for analyzing the metadata and the full-text of the collection. The workflow will cover: 1) creating a searchable public collection of full-text titles within the HathiTrust Digital Library and uploading it to the HTRC Portal, 2) analyzing and visualizing legacy MARC data for the collection using MarcEdit, OpenRefine and Tableau, and 3) using the text analysis tools in the HTRC Portal to look for trends and patterns in the full text of the collection.

0.036386296 = product of:
  0.10915889 = sum of:
    0.055596065 = weight(_text_:united in 1242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055596065 = score(doc=1242,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.2479343 = fieldWeight in 1242, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1242)
    0.053562824 = weight(_text_:states in 1242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053562824 = score(doc=1242,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.24335839 = fieldWeight in 1242, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1242)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The concept for the German Digital Libraries Program is imbedded in the Information Infrastructure Program of the German Federal Government for the years 1996-2000 which has been explicated in the Program Paper entitled "Information as Raw Material for Innovation".3 The Program Paper was published 1996 by the Federal Ministry for Education, Research, and Technology. The actual grants program "Global Info" was initiated by the Information and Communication Commission of the Joint Learned Societies to further technological advancement in enabling all researchers in Germany direct access to literature, research results, and other relevant information. This Commission was founded by four of the learned societies in 1995, and it has sponsored a series of workshops to increase awareness of leading edge technology and innovations in accessing electronic information sources. Now, nine of the leading research-level learned societies -- often those with umbrella responsibilities for other learned societies in their field -- are members of the Information and Communication Commission and represent the mathematicians, physicists, computer scientists, chemists, educational researchers, sociologists, psychologists, biologists and information technologists in the German Association of Engineers. (The German professional librarian societies are not members, as such, of this Commission, but are represented through delegates from libraries in the learned societies and in the future, hopefully, also by the German Association of Documentalists or through the cooperation between the documentalist and librarian professional societies.) The Federal Ministry earmarked 60 Million German Marks for projects within the framework of the German Digital Libraries Program in two phases over the next six years. The scope for the German Digital Libraries Program was announced in a press release in April 1997,4 and the first call for preliminary projects and expressions of interest in participation ended in July 1997. The Consortium members were suggested by the Information and Communication Commission of the Learned Societies (IuK Kommission), by key scientific research funding agencies in the German government, and by the publishers themselves. The first official meeting of the participants took place on December 1, 1997, at the Deutsche Bibliothek, located in the renowned center of German book trade, Frankfurt, thus documenting the active role and participation of libraries and publishers. In contrast to the Digital Libraries Project of the National Science Foundation in the United States, the German Digital Libraries project is based on furthering cooperation with universities, scientific publishing houses (including various international publishers), book dealers, and special subject information centers, as well as academic and research libraries. The goals of the German Digital Libraries Project are to achieve: 1) efficient access to world wide information; 2) directly from the scientist's desktop; 3) while providing the organization for and stimulating fundamental structural changes in the information and communication process of the scientific community.

0.036386296 = product of:
  0.10915889 = sum of:
    0.055596065 = weight(_text_:united in 1292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055596065 = score(doc=1292,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.2479343 = fieldWeight in 1292, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1292)
    0.053562824 = weight(_text_:states in 1292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053562824 = score(doc=1292,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.24335839 = fieldWeight in 1292, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1292)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Series

United States Patent 20050171760

0.03183801 = product of:
  0.09551403 = sum of:
    0.048646554 = weight(_text_:united in 1263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048646554 = score(doc=1263,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.2169425 = fieldWeight in 1263, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1263)
    0.04686747 = weight(_text_:states in 1263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04686747 = score(doc=1263,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.21293859 = fieldWeight in 1263, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1263)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The Internet would not be very useful if communication were limited to textual exchanges between speakers of English located in the United States. Rather, its value lies in its ability to enable people from multiple nations, speaking multiple languages, to employ multiple media in interacting with each other. While computer networks broke through national boundaries long ago, they remain much more effective for textual communication than for exchanges of sound, images, or mixed media -- and more effective for communication in English than for exchanges in most other languages, much less interactions involving multiple languages. Supporting searching and display in multiple languages is an increasingly important issue for all digital libraries accessible on the Internet. Even if a digital library contains materials in only one language, the content needs to be searchable and displayable on computers in countries speaking other languages. We need to exchange data between digital libraries, whether in a single language or in multiple languages. Data exchanges may be large batch updates or interactive hyperlinks. In any of these cases, character sets must be represented in a consistent manner if exchanges are to succeed. Issues of interoperability, portability, and data exchange related to multi-lingual character sets have received surprisingly little attention in the digital library community or in discussions of standards for information infrastructure, except in Europe. The landmark collection of papers on Standards Policy for Information Infrastructure, for example, contains no discussion of multi-lingual issues except for a passing reference to the Unicode standard. The goal of this short essay is to draw attention to the multi-lingual issues involved in designing digital libraries accessible on the Internet. Many of the multi-lingual design issues parallel those of multi-media digital libraries, a topic more familiar to most readers of D-Lib Magazine. This essay draws examples from multi-media DLs to illustrate some of the urgent design challenges in creating a globally distributed network serving people who speak many languages other than English. First we introduce some general issues of medium, culture, and language, then discuss the design challenges in the transition from local to global systems, lastly addressing technical matters. The technical issues involve the choice of character sets to represent languages, similar to the choices made in representing images or sound. However, the scale of the language problem is far greater. Standards for multi-media representation are being adopted fairly rapidly, in parallel with the availability of multi-media content in electronic form. By contrast, we have hundreds (and sometimes thousands) of years worth of textual materials in hundreds of languages, created long before data encoding standards existed. Textual content from past and present is being encoded in language and application-specific representations that are difficult to exchange without losing data -- if they exchange at all. We illustrate the multi-language DL challenge with examples drawn from the research library community, which typically handles collections of materials in 400 or so languages. These are problems faced not only by developers of digital libraries, but by those who develop and manage any communication technology that crosses national or linguistic boundaries.

0.027289724 = product of:
  0.08186917 = sum of:
    0.041697048 = weight(_text_:united in 1212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041697048 = score(doc=1212,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.18595073 = fieldWeight in 1212, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1212)
    0.04017212 = weight(_text_:states in 1212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04017212 = score(doc=1212,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.1825188 = fieldWeight in 1212, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1212)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Dewey and the Library of Congress The late 19th and early 20th centuries were a hotbed of intellectual activity for library categorizers. First Melvil Dewey developed his decimal system. Then the Library of Congress (LC) adapted Charles Ammi Cutter's alphanumeric system for its collection. Dewey, the only librarian popularly known for librarianship, had a healthy ego and placed information science at the very beginning of his classifications. The librarians at LC followed Cutter and relegated their profession to the back of their own bus, in the Zs. These two systems became the primary classifications accepted by the library community. I was once chastised at an SLA meeting for daring to design my own systems, and library schools that mainly train people for public and academic institutions reinforce this idea. In addition, LC provides cataloging and call numbers for almost every book commercially published in the United States and quite a few international publications. This is a seductive strategy for libraries that have little money and little time. These two systems contain drawbacks for special libraries. Let's see how they treat Snoopy. I'll be using Dewey for this exercise. Dewey has an index, which facilitates classification analysis. In addition, LC is a larger system, and we have space considerations here. However, other than length, call number building, and self-esteem, there is not much difference in the two theories. Figure 2 shows selected Dewey classifications for Snoopy, beagles, dogs, and animals (Melvil Dewey. Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index. 21st ed. Edited by Joan S. Mitchell, et al. Albany, NY: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, 1996). The call numbers are removed to emphasize hierarchy rather than notation. There are 234 categories. Both Dewey and LC are designed to describe the whole of human knowledge. For historic reasons, they do this from the perspective of an educated white male in 19th century America. This perspective presents some problems if your specialty is Snoopy. In "Generalities," newspaper cartoon strips are filed away under "Miscellaneous information, advice, amusement." However, a collection of Charles Schulz cartoons would be shelved way over in "The Arts [right arrow] Drawing and decorative arts," thereby separating two almost equal subjects by a very wide distance. The generic vocabulary required to describe all of human knowledge is also problematic for specialists. In "The Arts [right arrow] Standard subdivisions of fine and decorative arts and iconography," there are five synonyms for miscellaneous before we get to a real subject. Then it's another six facets to get to the dogs.

0.027289724 = product of:
  0.08186917 = sum of:
    0.041697048 = weight(_text_:united in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041697048 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.18595073 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.04017212 = weight(_text_:states in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04017212 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.1825188 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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.

0.022741437 = product of:
  0.06822431 = sum of:
    0.03474754 = weight(_text_:united in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03474754 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.15495893 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.033476766 = weight(_text_:states in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033476766 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.152099 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

NACO was established in 1976 and is hosted by the Library of Congress. At the beginning of 2003, nearly 400 institutions were involved in this undertaking, including 43 institutions from outside the United States.6 Despite the enormous success of NACO and the impressive annual growth of the initiative, there are requirements for participation that form an obstacle for many institutions: they have to follow the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) and employ the MARC217 data format. Participating institutions also have to belong to either OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) or RLG (Research Libraries Group) in order to be able to contribute records, and they have to provide a specified minimum number of authority records per year. A recent proof of concept project of the Library of Congress, OCLC and the German National Library-Virtual International Authority File (VIAF)8-will, in its first phase, test automatic linking of the records of the Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF) and the German Personal Name Authority File by using matching algorithms and software developed by OCLC. The results are expected to form the basis of a "Virtual International Authority File". The project will then test the maintenance of the virtual authority file by employing the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)9 to harvest the metadata for new, updated, and deleted records. When using the "Virtual International Authority File" a cataloguer will be able to check the system to see whether the authority record he wants to establish already exists. The final phase of the project will test possibilities for displaying records in the preferred language and script of the end user. Currently, there are still some clear limitations associated with the ways in which authority records are used by memory institutions. One of the main problems has to do with limited access: generally only large institutions or those that are part of a library network have unlimited online access to permanently updated authority records. Smaller institutions outside these networks usually have to fall back on less efficient ways of obtaining authority data, or have no access at all. Cross-domain sharing of authority data between libraries, archives, museums and other memory institutions simply does not happen at present. Public users are, by and large, not even aware that such things as name authority records exist and are excluded from access to these information resources.

0.018937318 = product of:
  0.1136239 = sum of:
    0.1136239 = weight(_text_:states in 735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1136239 = score(doc=735,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.5162411 = fieldWeight in 735, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=735)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In recent years, quantum-based methods have promisingly integrated the traditional procedures in information retrieval (IR) and natural language processing (NLP). Inspired by our research on the identification and application of quantum structures in cognition, more specifically our work on the representation of concepts and their combinations, we put forward a 'quantum meaning based' framework for structured query retrieval in text corpora and standardized testing corpora. This scheme for IR rests on considering as basic notions, (i) 'entities of meaning', e.g., concepts and their combinations and (ii) traces of such entities of meaning, which is how documents are considered in this approach. The meaning content of these 'entities of meaning' is reconstructed by solving an 'inverse problem' in the quantum formalism, consisting of reconstructing the full states of the entities of meaning from their collapsed states identified as traces in relevant documents. The advantages with respect to traditional approaches, such as Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA), are discussed by means of concrete examples.

0.018532023 = product of:
  0.11119213 = sum of:
    0.11119213 = weight(_text_:united in 7593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11119213 = score(doc=7593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.4958686 = fieldWeight in 7593, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7593)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Imprint

München : United Soft Media

0.017854275 = product of:
  0.10712565 = sum of:
    0.10712565 = weight(_text_:states in 5016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10712565 = score(doc=5016,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.48671678 = fieldWeight in 5016, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5016)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The charge for the SAC Subcommittee on Metadata and Subject Analysis states: Identify and study the major issues surrounding the use of metadata in the subject analysis and classification of digital resources. Provide discussion forums and programs relevant to these issues. Discussion forums should begin by Annual 1998. The continued need for the subcommittee should be reexamined by SAC no later than 2001.

0.013899016 = product of:
  0.083394095 = sum of:
    0.083394095 = weight(_text_:united in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083394095 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Most libraries and other cultural heritage institutions use controlled knowledge organisation systems, such as thesauri, to describe their collections. Unfortunately, as most of these institutions use different such systems, united access to heterogeneous collections is difficult. Things are even worse in an international context when concepts have labels in different languages. In order to overcome the multilingual interoperability problem between European Libraries, extensive work has been done to manually map concepts from different knowledge organisation systems, which is a tedious and expensive process. Within the TELplus project, we developed and evaluated methods to automatically discover these mappings, using different ontology matching techniques. In experiments on major French, English and German subject heading lists Rameau, LCSH and SWD, we show that we can automatically produce mappings of surprisingly good quality, even when using relatively naive translation and matching methods.