Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.08921988 = product of:
  0.17843977 = sum of:
    0.17843977 = sum of:
      0.13709138 = weight(_text_:policy in 5507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13709138 = score(doc=5507,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05086421 = queryNorm
          0.50267184 = fieldWeight in 5507, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5507)
      0.041348387 = weight(_text_:22 in 5507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041348387 = score(doc=5507,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05086421 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5507, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5507)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Addresses the technical and policy issues in the development of an international infrastructure for the flow of information by studying the emerging national information infrastructures in 6 post communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe. The study consisted of interviews with over 300 library managers, computing network administrators, government policy makers and other information professionals conducted in 1993 and 1994 in Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, plus a 1994 mail survey of research libraries in these countries. After presenting the principles under which the G-7 leading industrialized countries have agreed to collaborate on constructing a Global Information Infrastructure (GII), presents examples from the survey on how the GII pronciples might be addressed. Results of the longitudinal study were reported at greater length in the Proceedings of the 58th Meeting of the ASIS, 1995, S.27-34

Source

IFLA journal. 22(1996) no.2, S.121-127

0.057619434 = product of:
  0.11523887 = sum of:
    0.11523887 = sum of:
      0.08078188 = weight(_text_:policy in 248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08078188 = score(doc=248,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05086421 = queryNorm
          0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 248, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=248)
      0.03445699 = weight(_text_:22 in 248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03445699 = score(doc=248,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05086421 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 248, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=248)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Researchers are producing an unprecedented deluge of data by using new methods and instrumentation. Others may wish to mine these data for new discoveries and innovations. However, research data are not readily available as sharing is common in only a few fields such as astronomy and genomics. Data sharing practices in other fields vary widely. Moreover, research data take many forms, are handled in many ways, using many approaches, and often are difficult to interpret once removed from their initial context. Data sharing is thus a conundrum. Four rationales for sharing data are examined, drawing examples from the sciences, social sciences, and humanities: (1) to reproduce or to verify research, (2) to make results of publicly funded research available to the public, (3) to enable others to ask new questions of extant data, and (4) to advance the state of research and innovation. These rationales differ by the arguments for sharing, by beneficiaries, and by the motivations and incentives of the many stakeholders involved. The challenges are to understand which data might be shared, by whom, with whom, under what conditions, why, and to what effects. Answers will inform data policy and practice.

Date

11. 6.2012 15:22:29

0.028273653 = product of:
  0.056547306 = sum of:
    0.056547306 = product of:
      0.11309461 = sum of:
        0.11309461 = weight(_text_:policy in 1) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11309461 = score(doc=1,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.4146831 = fieldWeight in 1, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Libraries are an essential component of a nation's information infrastructure, yet often they are invisible to their users and other stakeholders. In the context of this special issue, the paper presents four challenges faced by libraries and proposes research designs to address each of them. The four challenges involve: 1. invisible infrastructure, 2. content and collections, 3. preservation and access, and 4. institutional boundaries. I propose a mixture of research methods that includes surveys, case studies, documentary analyses, and policy analyses. Only with a better understanding of these challenges can libraries find their best fit in the information infrastructure of our networked world.

0.02019547 = product of:
  0.04039094 = sum of:
    0.04039094 = product of:
      0.08078188 = sum of:
        0.08078188 = weight(_text_:policy in 239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08078188 = score(doc=239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 239, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A 5-year project to study scientific data uses in geography, starting in 1999, evolved into 20 years of research on data practices in sensor networks, environmental sciences, biology, seismology, undersea science, biomedicine, astronomy, and other fields. By emulating the "team science" approaches of the scientists studied, the UCLA Center for Knowledge Infrastructures accumulated a comprehensive collection of qualitative data about how scientists generate, manage, use, and reuse data across domains. Building upon Paul N. Edwards's model of "making global data"-collecting signals via consistent methods, technologies, and policies-to "make data global"-comparing and integrating those data, the research team has managed and exploited these data as a collaborative resource. This article reflects on the social, technical, organizational, economic, and policy challenges the team has encountered in creating new knowledge from data old and new. We reflect on continuity over generations of students and staff, transitions between grants, transfer of legacy data between software tools, research methods, and the role of professional data managers in the social sciences.

0.016156374 = product of:
  0.032312747 = sum of:
    0.032312747 = product of:
      0.064625494 = sum of:
        0.064625494 = weight(_text_:policy in 2785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064625494 = score(doc=2785,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.23696178 = fieldWeight in 2785, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2785)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

"Big Data" is on the covers of Science, Nature, the Economist, and Wired magazines, on the front pages of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. But despite the media hyperbole, as Christine Borgman points out in this examination of data and scholarly research, having the right data is usually better than having more data; little data can be just as valuable as big data. In many cases, there are no data -- because relevant data don't exist, cannot be found, or are not available. Moreover, data sharing is difficult, incentives to do so are minimal, and data practices vary widely across disciplines. Borgman, an often-cited authority on scholarly communication, argues that data have no value or meaning in isolation; they exist within a knowledge infrastructure -- an ecology of people, practices, technologies, institutions, material objects, and relationships. After laying out the premises of her investigation -- six "provocations" meant to inspire discussion about the uses of data in scholarship -- Borgman offers case studies of data practices in the sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities, and then considers the implications of her findings for scholarly practice and research policy. To manage and exploit data over the long term, Borgman argues, requires massive investment in knowledge infrastructures; at stake is the future of scholarship.

0.014136827 = product of:
  0.028273653 = sum of:
    0.028273653 = product of:
      0.056547306 = sum of:
        0.056547306 = weight(_text_:policy in 1263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056547306 = score(doc=1263,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.20734155 = fieldWeight in 1263, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1263)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.008614248 = product of:
  0.017228495 = sum of:
    0.017228495 = product of:
      0.03445699 = sum of:
        0.03445699 = weight(_text_:22 in 5325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03445699 = score(doc=5325,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5325, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5325)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

7. 7.2019 11:58:22

0.006891398 = product of:
  0.013782796 = sum of:
    0.013782796 = product of:
      0.027565593 = sum of:
        0.027565593 = weight(_text_:22 in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027565593 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3231, 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=3231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3. 6.2005 20:40:22