Search (75 results, page 4 of 4)

0.008557925 = product of:
  0.025673775 = sum of:
    0.025673775 = product of:
      0.05134755 = sum of:
        0.05134755 = weight(_text_:management in 5988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05134755 = score(doc=5988,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.29792285 = fieldWeight in 5988, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5988)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The library technology industry, broadly speaking, shows more affinity toward utility than innovation. Library automation systems are not necessarily exciting technologies, but they are workhorse applications that must support the complex tasks of acquiring, describing, and providing access to materials and services. They represent substantial investments, and their effectiveness is tested daily in the library. But more than efficiency is at stake: These products must be aligned with the priorities of the library relative to collection management, service provision, and other functions.

0.00808256 = product of:
  0.02424768 = sum of:
    0.02424768 = product of:
      0.04849536 = sum of:
        0.04849536 = weight(_text_:22 in 2092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04849536 = score(doc=2092,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2092, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2092)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2015 16:13:38

0.007564209 = product of:
  0.022692626 = sum of:
    0.022692626 = product of:
      0.045385253 = sum of:
        0.045385253 = weight(_text_:management in 4843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045385253 = score(doc=4843,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 4843, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4843)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) is a well founded mathematical framework used for conceptual classication and knowledge management. Given a binary table describing a relation between objects and attributes, FCA consists in building a set of concepts organized by a subsumption relation within a concept lattice. Accordingly, FCA requires to transform complex data, e.g. numbers, intervals, graphs, into binary data leading to loss of information and poor interpretability of object classes. In this paper, we propose a pre-processing method producing binary data from complex data taking advantage of similarity between objects. As a result, the concept lattice is composed of classes being maximal sets of pairwise similar objects. This method is based on FCA and on a formalization of similarity as a tolerance relation (reexive and symmetric). It applies to complex object descriptions and especially here to interval data. Moreover, it can be applied to any kind of structured data for which a similarity can be dened (sequences, graphs, etc.). Finally, an application highlights that the resulting concept lattice plays an important role in information fusion problem, as illustrated with a real-world example in agronomy.

Series

Knowledge and data representation and management; no.7353

0.0074881846 = product of:
  0.022464553 = sum of:
    0.022464553 = product of:
      0.044929106 = sum of:
        0.044929106 = weight(_text_:management in 740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044929106 = score(doc=740,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 740, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=740)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports on a study carried out by the Centre for Bibliographic Management (now UKOLN) which aimed to find out the proportion of records used from the BLCMP Union Catalogue (BUC) are edited by BLCMP member libraries and to ascertain the reasons for the editing. The study established what percentage of records are edited, made a statistical analysis of the fields being edited and the types of change being made, and carried out an analysis of a random sample of edited records which had been annotated by the editing libraries to indicate the reason for each edit

0.0074881846 = product of:
  0.022464553 = sum of:
    0.022464553 = product of:
      0.044929106 = sum of:
        0.044929106 = weight(_text_:management in 6768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044929106 = score(doc=6768,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 6768, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6768)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports on a Centre for Information Quality Management (CIQM) BLRRD funded project which investigated the quality of databases in general use in the UK. Gives a literature review of quality in library and information services. Reports the results of a CIQM questionnaire survey on the quality problems of databases and their affect on users. Carries out databases evaluations of: INSPEC on ESA-IRS, INSPEC on KR Data-Star, INSPEC on UMI CD-ROM, BNB on CD-ROM, and Information Science Abstracts Plus CD-ROM. Sets out a methodology for evaluation of bibliographic databases

0.0064184438 = product of:
  0.01925533 = sum of:
    0.01925533 = product of:
      0.03851066 = sum of:
        0.03851066 = weight(_text_:management in 2618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03851066 = score(doc=2618,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 2618, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2618)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes the ELINOR (Electronic Library INformation Online Retrieval) Electronic Library Project, at De Montfort University, UK, which aims to convert library primary materials and course documents to electronic form and to make the full text documents accessible to teaching staff and students in an electronic workstation environment. This pilot phase of the ELINOR Electronic Library Project demonstrated the feasibility of collecting electronic documents for 1 undergraduate course, BA/BSc Business Information Systems (BIS), and the benefits of optical character recognition (OCR) and scanning and document image processing (DIP) techniques in a client server environment. A key feature of the project was the negotiation of short term licences from 11 publishers for 53 textbooks. Publishers were prepared to participate in the project to provide useful early experience in copyright management on small scale

0.0064184438 = product of:
  0.01925533 = sum of:
    0.01925533 = product of:
      0.03851066 = sum of:
        0.03851066 = weight(_text_:management in 3807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03851066 = score(doc=3807,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 3807, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3807)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This technical report provides guidelines for the content, organization, and presentation of indexes used for the retrieval of documents and parts of documents. It deals with the principles of indexing, regardless of the type of material indexed, the indexing method used (intellectual analysis, machine algorithm, or both), the medium of the index, or the method of presentation for searching. It emphasizes 4 processes essential for all indexes: comprehensive design, vocabulary management, and the provision of systax. It includes definitions of indexes and of their parts, attributes, and aspects; a uniform vocabulary; treatment of the nature and variety of indexes; and recommendations regarding the design, organization, and presentation of indexes. It does not suggest guidelines for every detail or technique of indexing. These can be determined for each index on the basis of factors covered in the technical report

0.0057732575 = product of:
  0.017319772 = sum of:
    0.017319772 = product of:
      0.034639545 = sum of:
        0.034639545 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034639545 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

7. 2.2011 19:52:22

0.0057732575 = product of:
  0.017319772 = sum of:
    0.017319772 = product of:
      0.034639545 = sum of:
        0.034639545 = weight(_text_:22 in 4178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034639545 = score(doc=4178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4178, 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=4178)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 3.2018 17:30:43

0.0057732575 = product of:
  0.017319772 = sum of:
    0.017319772 = product of:
      0.034639545 = sum of:
        0.034639545 = weight(_text_:22 in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034639545 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4997, 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=4997)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 2.2019 9:26:20

0.005348703 = product of:
  0.016046109 = sum of:
    0.016046109 = product of:
      0.032092217 = sum of:
        0.032092217 = weight(_text_:management in 7233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032092217 = score(doc=7233,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 7233, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7233)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Examines the place of CD-ROMs in academic libraries and in particular the use of network solutions to widen the access to these services. A questionnaire survey was undertaken of academic libraries in the UK, Eire, USA and Canada and the results analysed. 9 UK libraries were selected as case studies for more detailed examinations of the issues involved: in particular the management issues. These case studies were selected to cover a variety of experiences and circumstances. A parallel survey looked at CD-ROM publishing and a questionnaire survey was sent to publishers but the response was not as good as the previous survey. Trends in CD-ROM publishing, including the future of CD-ROM in the views of the publishers and of librarians, suggest that other electronic media may replace CD-ROM for some applications but that CD-ROM is likely to remain a part of hybrid information systems. The networking of CD-ROM services is constrained by the cost, by technical complexity, and by restrictive licensing agreements. Future electronic information services may include regionally or nationally mounted databases accessible over the Internet or over SuperJanet in the UK. Issues such as the electronic library or the virtual library, and document delivery services are likely to gain prominence

0.005348703 = product of:
  0.016046109 = sum of:
    0.016046109 = product of:
      0.032092217 = sum of:
        0.032092217 = weight(_text_:management in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032092217 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

View based searching and multi view searching using HIBROWSE proposes a new paradigm for information retrieval from bibliographic databases and database management systems. The paradigm replaces command line and form based interaction with query specification and interaction which requires the user to identify views relating to query facets of the subject of their query. Attempted to apply techniques from human-computer interaction design in the development, construction and usability evaluation of a view based searching system for a very large bibliographic database. As the development of the HIBROWSE system had been in progress before usability became a major concern, as well as the class of system being developed, greater progress towards improved usability was made by adopting a less structured development life-cycle. Examined the usefulness of a number of usability evaluation methods in the context of trying to determine the usability of designs in interactive information retrieval systems. Measurement of the subjective usability of prototypes reinforced the finding of users' difficulties in forming a useful account of the system behaviour and functionality from the training material provided, highlighted some aspects of the system that could be improved, and the greater usability of the HIBROWSE prototypes over an extant commercial bibliographic database system

0.0046186056 = product of:
  0.013855817 = sum of:
    0.013855817 = product of:
      0.027711634 = sum of:
        0.027711634 = weight(_text_:22 in 506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027711634 = score(doc=506,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 506, 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=506)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

8.12.2012 17:22:26

0.0042789625 = product of:
  0.0128368875 = sum of:
    0.0128368875 = product of:
      0.025673775 = sum of:
        0.025673775 = weight(_text_:management in 6068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025673775 = score(doc=6068,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 6068, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6068)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0037440923 = product of:
  0.011232276 = sum of:
    0.011232276 = product of:
      0.022464553 = sum of:
        0.022464553 = weight(_text_:management in 2974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022464553 = score(doc=2974,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.13034125 = fieldWeight in 2974, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2974)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Der wirkungsvolle und erfolgreiche Umgang mit Wissen wird erst durch aufeinander abgestimmte Management-Bausteine erreicht, wie sie heute im Rahmen von Konzeptionen eines Wissensmanagements formuliert werden. Bausteine eines solchen Wissensmanagements sind auf strategischer wie auf operativer Ebene angesiedelt. Auf der strategischen Ebene geht es vor allem um die Formulierung von Wissenszielen der Organisation, basierend auf den als kritisch erkannten Erfolgsfaktoren. Auf der operativen Ebene benennen verschiedene Konzeptionen eines Wissensmanagement heute unterschiedlich differenzierte Bausteine der Realisierung. Generalisiert lassen sich in nahezu allen Konzeptionen jedoch drei Gruppen von Bausteinen identifizieren, die je nach Ansatz weiter differenziert werden können: - Wissensgenerierung und Wissenserwerb - Wissensidentifikation und Wissenstransparenz - Wissensverteilung und Wissensnutzung Wissenstransparenz bzw. die Identifikation von Wissen werden in den gängigen Konzeptionen also als ein zentrales Element der operativen Aufgaben im Wissensmanagement erkannt (vgl. Probst/Romhardt 1996; Probst et al. 1998) Bullinger et al. 1998; Davenport/Prusak 1998). Im Gegensatz zum Datenmanagement und auch zum Informationsmanagement, spielen in diesen Konzepten vor allem auch die individuellen Wissensressourcen der Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter eine entscheidende Rolle. Es ist eine Schlüsselerkenntnis modernen Managements, dass wesentliche Werte der Unternehmung 2in den Köpfen der Mitarbeiter" zu finden sind. Dabei ist Wissen als eine Ressource erkannt, die von Menschen generiert wird, an diese Menschen gebunden ist, auf Erfahrungen und Einstellungen beruht und sich nur in sehr eingeschränktem Masse externalisieren und übertragen lässt (tacit knowledge). In diesem Sinne geht es uns in der Hauptsache um Handlungswissen, um das "gewusst wie". Wie können mühsam erworbene Erfahrungen dokumentiert und transparent gemacht werden, wie kann dafür gesorgt werden, dass sie dem Unternehmen insgesamt und jederzeit zugute kommen können? Wie können erfolgreich durchgefiihrte Aktivitäten und Prozesse als Muster dienen, wenn analoge Aufgaben an anderen Orten und zu anderen Zeiten zu erfüllen sind? Wie gelangen wir vom individuellen Wissen einzelner Mitarbeiter zur Fähigkeit von Organisationen oder Teams, komplexe Probleme und Aufgaben zu lösen? Wenn generiertes, durch Erfahrung gewonnenes oder eingekauftes Wissen dem Unternehmen insgesamt, d.h. den Mitarbeitern die dieses Wissen jeweils benötigen, zugute kommen soll, muss für eine Transparenz über das unternehmensweit vorhandene Wissen gesorgt werden, ebenso über Wissen im Umfeld eines Unternehmens (bspw. bei Partner, Kunden, Behörden usw.). Dabei ist beim Wissensmanagement zunehmend die Tendenz einer räumlich dezentralen - oft sogar globalen - sowie zeitlich flüchtigen und virtuellen Organisation der Unternehmungen zu berücksichtigen (Faisst 1996). Unternehmen suchen nach best practices zur Organisation von Team- und Gruppenprozessen. Unternehmerische Prozesse und unternehmensrelevantes Wissen besitzen heute eine hohe Komplexität, die eine Erfassung, Speicherung und Verteilung des benötigten Wissens selbst ausgeschlossen erscheinen lässt bzw. nur unter Einsatz enormer Ressourcen möglich macht. Die angesprochenen Schwierigkeiten der Externalisierung des jeweils individuellen Erfahrungswissens von Experten stehen diesem Unterfangen ohnehin unüberbrücklich im Wege.