Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Objektdokumentation"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Dworman, G.O.; Kimbrough, S.O.; Patch, C.: On pattern-directed search of arcives and collections (2000) 0.01
    0.009625921 = product of:
      0.019251842 = sum of:
        0.019251842 = product of:
          0.038503684 = sum of:
            0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 4289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.038503684 = score(doc=4289,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 4289, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4289)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This article begins by presenting and discussing the distinction between record-oriented and pattern-oriented search. Examples or recordoriented (or item-oriented) questions include: "What (or how many, etc.) glass items made prior to 100 A.D. do we have in our collection?" and "How many paintings featuring dogs do we have that were painted during the 19th century, and who painted them?" Standard database systems are well suited to answering such questions, based on the data in, for example, a collections management system. Examples of pattern-oriented questions include: "How does the (apparent) productoin of glass objects vary over time between 400 B.C. and 100 A.D.?" and "What other animals are present in paintings with dogs (painted during the 19th century and in our collection)?" Standard database systems are not well suited to answering these sorts of questions, even though the basic data is properly stored in them. To answer pattern-oriented questions it is the accepted solution to transform the underlying (relational) data to what is called the data cube or cross tabulation form. We discuss how this can be done for non-numeric data, such as are found in museum collections and archives
  2. Paternò, F.; Mancini, C.: Effective levels of adaptation to different types of users in interactive museum systems (2000) 0.01
    0.008167865 = product of:
      0.01633573 = sum of:
        0.01633573 = product of:
          0.03267146 = sum of:
            0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 4288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03267146 = score(doc=4288,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 4288, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4288)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  3. Larsen, J.L.: ¬The LongHouse proposal for objects classified by mediums (2009) 0.01
    0.008167865 = product of:
      0.01633573 = sum of:
        0.01633573 = product of:
          0.03267146 = sum of:
            0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 3103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03267146 = score(doc=3103,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 3103, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3103)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    In 1996, with funding from the Henry Luce Foundation, Jack Lenor Larsen and an advisory committee composed of distinguished museum and design professionals developed Objects Classified by Mediums in response to the concern that existing systems do not provide the tools for comparing information on objects. A common understanding and definitions of terms are crucial to the success of a classification project meant to cross institutional and national boundaries. Objects Classified by Mediums seeks to organize areas of study in fiber, clay, metal, wood, and so on, to allow curators and scholars to compare information on similar methods used, build a conceptual framework for the greater understanding of whole categories of objects rather than as isolated works, and provide a finding tool for cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary investigation.