-
Cleverdon, C.W.: ASLIB Cranfield Research Project : Report on the first stage of an investigation into the comparative efficiency of indexing systems (1960)
0.08
0.07509278 = product of:
0.15018556 = sum of:
0.15018556 = sum of:
0.06534292 = weight(_text_:systems in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06534292 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 6158, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6158)
0.084842645 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084842645 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6158, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6158)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: College and research libraries 22(1961) no.3, S.228 (G. Jahoda)
-
Subrahmanyam, B.: Library of Congress Classification numbers : issues of consistency and their implications for union catalogs (2006)
0.05
0.048115388 = product of:
0.096230775 = sum of:
0.096230775 = sum of:
0.060879674 = weight(_text_:systems in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060879674 = score(doc=5784,freq=10.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.37961838 = fieldWeight in 5784, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5784)
0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0353511 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5784, 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=5784)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This study examined Library of Congress Classification (LCC)-based class numbers assigned to a representative sample of 200 titles in 52 American library systems to determine the level of consistency within and across those systems. The results showed that under the condition that a library system has a title, the probability of that title having the same LCC-based class number across library systems is greater than 85 percent. An examination of 121 titles displaying variations in class numbers among library systems showed certain titles (for example, multi-foci titles, titles in series, bibliographies, and fiction) lend themselves to alternate class numbers. Others were assigned variant numbers either due to latitude in the schedules or for reasons that cannot be pinpointed. With increasing dependence on copy cataloging, the size of such variations may continue to decrease. As the preferred class number with its alternates represents a title more fully than just the preferred class number, this paper argues for continued use of alternates by library systems and for finding a method to link alternate class numbers to preferred class numbers for enriched subject access through local and union catalogs.
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Cleverdon, C.W.: Evaluation tests of information retrieval systems (1970)
0.02
0.021780973 = product of:
0.043561947 = sum of:
0.043561947 = product of:
0.08712389 = sum of:
0.08712389 = weight(_text_:systems in 2272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08712389 = score(doc=2272,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.5432656 = fieldWeight in 2272, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2272)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Cleverdon, C.W.: Aslib Cranfield research project : report on the testing and analysis of an investigation into the comparative efficiency of indexing systems (1962)
0.02
0.021780973 = product of:
0.043561947 = sum of:
0.043561947 = product of:
0.08712389 = sum of:
0.08712389 = weight(_text_:systems in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08712389 = score(doc=2741,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.5432656 = fieldWeight in 2741, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2741)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Azubuike, A.A.; Umoh, J.S.: Computerized information storage and retrieval systems (1988)
0.02
0.021780973 = product of:
0.043561947 = sum of:
0.043561947 = product of:
0.08712389 = sum of:
0.08712389 = weight(_text_:systems in 4153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08712389 = score(doc=4153,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.5432656 = fieldWeight in 4153, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4153)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Boyce, B.R.; McLain, J.P.: Entry point depth and online search using a controlled vocabulary (1989)
0.02
0.019058352 = product of:
0.038116705 = sum of:
0.038116705 = product of:
0.07623341 = sum of:
0.07623341 = weight(_text_:systems in 2287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07623341 = score(doc=2287,freq=8.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.47535738 = fieldWeight in 2287, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2287)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The depth of indexing, the number of terms assigned on average to each document in a retrieval system as entry points, has a significantly effect on the standard retrieval performance measures in modern commercial retrieval systems, just as it did in previous experimental work. Tests on the effect of basic index search, as opposed to controlled vocabulary search, in these real systems are quite different than traditional comparisons of free text searching with controlled vocabulary searching. In modern commercial systems the controlled vocabulary serves as a precision device, since the strucure of the default for unqualified search terms in these systems requires that it do so.
-
Cleverdon, C.W.; Mills, J.; Keen, M.: Factors determining the performance of indexing systems : ASLIB Cranfield research project (1966)
0.02
0.019058352 = product of:
0.038116705 = sum of:
0.038116705 = product of:
0.07623341 = sum of:
0.07623341 = weight(_text_:systems in 5363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07623341 = score(doc=5363,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.47535738 = fieldWeight in 5363, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5363)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Veenema, F.: To index or not to index (1996)
0.01
0.014140441 = product of:
0.028280882 = sum of:
0.028280882 = product of:
0.056561764 = sum of:
0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056561764 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7247, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7247)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Canadian journal of information and library science. 21(1996) no.2, S.1-22
-
Rowley, J.: ¬The controlled versus natural indexing languages debate revisited : a perspective on information retrieval practice and research (1994)
0.01
0.013613109 = product of:
0.027226217 = sum of:
0.027226217 = product of:
0.054452434 = sum of:
0.054452434 = weight(_text_:systems in 7151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054452434 = score(doc=7151,freq=8.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.339541 = fieldWeight in 7151, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7151)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article revisits the debate concerning controlled and natural indexing languages, as used in searching the databases of the online hosts, in-house information retrieval systems, online public access catalogues and databases stored on CD-ROM. The debate was first formulated in the early days of information retrieval more than a century ago but, despite significant advance in technology, remains unresolved. The article divides the history of the debate into four eras. Era one was characterised by the introduction of controlled vocabulary. Era two focused on comparisons between different indexing languages in order to assess which was best. Era three saw a number of case studies of limited generalisability and a general recognition that the best search performance can be achieved by the parallel use of the two types of indexing languages. The emphasis in Era four has been on the development of end-user-based systems, including online public access catalogues and databases on CD-ROM. Recent developments in the use of expert systems techniques to support the representation of meaning may lead to systems which offer significant support to the user in end-user searching. In the meantime, however, information retrieval in practice involves a mixture of natural and controlled indexing languages used to search a wide variety of different kinds of databases
-
Ballard, R.M.: Indexing and its relevance to technical processing (1993)
0.01
0.013613109 = product of:
0.027226217 = sum of:
0.027226217 = product of:
0.054452434 = sum of:
0.054452434 = weight(_text_:systems in 554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054452434 = score(doc=554,freq=8.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.339541 = fieldWeight in 554, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=554)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The development of regional on-line catalogs and in-house information systems for retrieval of references provide examples of the impact of indexing theory and applications on technical processing. More emphasis must be given to understanding the techniques for evaluating the effectiveness of a file, irrespective of whether that file was created as a library catalog or an index to information sources. The most significant advances in classification theory in recent decades has been as a result of efforts to improve effectiveness of indexing systems. Library classification systems are indexing languages or systems. Courses offered for the preparation of indexers in the United States and the United Kingdom are reviewed. A point of congruence for both the indexer and the library classifier would appear to be the need for a thorough preparation in the techniques of subject analysis. Any subject heading list will suffer from omissions as well as the inclusion of terms which the patron will never use. Indexing theory has provided the technical services department with methods for evaluation of effectiveness. The writer does not believe that these techniques are used, nor do current courses, workshops, and continuing education programs stress them. When theory is totally subjugated to practice, critical thinking and maximum effectiveness will suffer.
-
Morris, L.R.: ¬The frequency of use of Library of Congress Classification numbers and Dewey Decimal Classification numbers in the MARC file in the field of library science (1991)
0.01
0.013476291 = product of:
0.026952581 = sum of:
0.026952581 = product of:
0.053905163 = sum of:
0.053905163 = weight(_text_:systems in 2308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053905163 = score(doc=2308,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 2308, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2308)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The LCC and DDC systems were devised and updated by librarians who had and have no access to the eventual frequency of use of each number in those classification systems. 80% of the monographs in a MARC file of over 1.000.000 records are classified into 20% of the classification numbers in the field of library science and only 20% of the mongraphs are classified into 80% of the classification numbers in the field of library science. Classification of monographs coulld be made easier and performed more accurately if many of the little used and unused numbers were eliminated and many of the most crowded numbers were expanded. A number of examples are included
-
Hersh, W.R.; Hickam, D.H.: ¬A comparison of two methods for indexing and retrieval from a full-text medical database (1992)
0.01
0.013476291 = product of:
0.026952581 = sum of:
0.026952581 = product of:
0.053905163 = sum of:
0.053905163 = weight(_text_:systems in 4526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053905163 = score(doc=4526,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 4526, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4526)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a study of 2 information retrieval systems on a 2.000 document full text medical database. The first system, SAPHIRE, features concept based automatic indexing and statistical retrieval techniques, while the second system, SWORD, features traditional word based Boolean techniques, 16 medical students at Oregon Health Sciences Univ. each performed 10 searches and their results, recorded in terms of recall and precision, showed nearly equal performance for both systems. SAPHIRE was also compared with a version of SWORD modified to use automatic indexing and ranked retrieval. Using batch input of queries, the latter method performed slightly better
-
Chartron, G.; Dalbin, S.; Monteil, M.-G.; Verillon, M.: Indexation manuelle et indexation automatique : dépasser les oppositions (1989)
0.01
0.013476291 = product of:
0.026952581 = sum of:
0.026952581 = product of:
0.053905163 = sum of:
0.053905163 = weight(_text_:systems in 3516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053905163 = score(doc=3516,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 3516, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3516)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Report of a study comparing 2 methods of indexing: LEXINET, a computerised system for indexing titles and summaries only; and manual indexing of full texts, using the thesaurus developed by French Electricity (EDF). Both systems were applied to a collection of approximately 2.000 documents on artifical intelligence from the EDF data base. The results were then analysed to compare quantitative performance (number and range of terms) and qualitative performance (ambiguity of terms, specificity, variability, consistency). Overall, neither system proved ideal: LEXINET was deficient as regards lack of accessibility and excessive ambiguity; while the manual system gave rise to an over-wide variation of terms. The ideal system would appear to be a combination of automatic and manual systems, on the evidence produced here.
-
Soergel, D.: Indexing and retrieval performance : the logical evidence (1994)
0.01
0.013476291 = product of:
0.026952581 = sum of:
0.026952581 = product of:
0.053905163 = sum of:
0.053905163 = weight(_text_:systems in 579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053905163 = score(doc=579,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 579, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=579)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article presents a logical analysis of the characteristics of indexing and their effects on retrieval performance.It establishes the ability to ask the questions one needs to ask as the foundation of performance evaluation, and recall and discrimination as the basic quantitative performance measures for binary noninteractive retrieval systems. It then defines the characteristics of indexing that affect retrieval - namely, indexing devices, viewpoint-based and importance-based indexing exhaustivity, indexing specifity, indexing correctness, and indexing consistency - and examines in detail their effects on retrieval. It concludes that retrieval performance depends chiefly on the match between indexing and the requirements of the individual query and on the adaption of the query formulation to the characteristics of the retrieval system, and that the ensuing complexity must be considered in the design and testing of retrieval systems
-
Booth, A.: How consistent is MEDLINE indexing? (1990)
0.01
0.012372886 = product of:
0.024745772 = sum of:
0.024745772 = product of:
0.049491543 = sum of:
0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049491543 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3510, 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=3510)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Health libraries review. 7(1990) no.1, S.22-26
-
Neshat, N.; Horri, A.: ¬A study of subject indexing consistency between the National Library of Iran and Humanities Libraries in the area of Iranian studies (2006)
0.01
0.012372886 = product of:
0.024745772 = sum of:
0.024745772 = product of:
0.049491543 = sum of:
0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049491543 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 230, 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=230)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 4. 1.2007 10:22:26
-
Haanen, E.: Specificiteit en consistentie : een kwantitatief oderzoek naar trefwoordtoekenning door UBA en UBN (1991)
0.01
0.010890487 = product of:
0.021780973 = sum of:
0.021780973 = product of:
0.043561947 = sum of:
0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 4778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043561947 = score(doc=4778,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 4778, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4778)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Online public access catalogues enable users to undertake subject searching by classification schedules, natural language, or controlled language terminology. In practice the 1st method is little used. Controlled language systems require indexers to index specifically and consistently. A comparative survey was made of indexing practices at Amsterdam and Mijmegen university libraries. On average Amsterdam assigned each document 3.5 index terms against 1.8 at Nijmegen. This discrepancy in indexing policy is the result of long-standing practices in each institution. Nijmegen has failed to utilise the advantages offered by online cataloges
-
Prasher, R.G.: Evaluation of indexing system (1989)
0.01
0.010890487 = product of:
0.021780973 = sum of:
0.021780973 = product of:
0.043561947 = sum of:
0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 4998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043561947 = score(doc=4998,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 4998, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4998)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Describes information system and its various components-index file construstion, query formulation and searching. Discusses an indexing system, and brings out the need for its evaluation. Explains the concept of the efficiency of indexing systems and discusses factors which control this efficiency. Gives criteria for evaluation. Discusses recall and precision ratios, as also noise ratio, novelty ratio, and exhaustivity and specificity and the impact of each on the efficiency of indexing system. Mention also various steps for evaluation.
-
Saarti, J.: Consistency of subject indexing of novels by public library professionals and patrons (2002)
0.01
0.010890487 = product of:
0.021780973 = sum of:
0.021780973 = product of:
0.043561947 = sum of:
0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 4473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043561947 = score(doc=4473,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 4473, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4473)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The paper discusses the consistency of fiction indexing of library professionals and patrons based on an empirical test. Indexing was carried out with a Finnish fictional thesaurus and all of the test persons indexed the same five novels. The consistency of indexing was determined to be low; several reasons are postulated. Also an algorithm for typified indexing of fiction is given as well as some suggestions for the development of fiction information retrieval systems and content representation.
-
Taniguchi, S.: Recording evidence in bibliographic records and descriptive metadata (2005)
0.01
0.010605331 = product of:
0.021210661 = sum of:
0.021210661 = product of:
0.042421322 = sum of:
0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042421322 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3565, 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=3565)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 18. 6.2005 13:16:22
