Search (82 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  1. Renear, A.H.; Wickett, K.M.; Urban, R.J.; Dubin, D.; Shreeves, S.L.: Collection/item metadata relationships (2008) 0.04 
    0.044312872 = product of:
  0.088625744 = sum of:
    0.088625744 = sum of:
      0.04620442 = weight(_text_:systems in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04620442 = score(doc=2623,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
      0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042421322 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2623, 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=2623)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Contemporary retrieval systems, which search across collections, usually ignore collection-level metadata. Alternative approaches, exploiting collection-level information, will require an understanding of the various kinds of relationships that can obtain between collection-level and item-level metadata. This paper outlines the problem and describes a project that is developing a logic-based framework for classifying collection/item metadata relationships. This framework will support (i) metadata specification developers defining metadata elements, (ii) metadata creators describing objects, and (iii) system designers implementing systems that take advantage of collection-level metadata. We present three examples of collection/item metadata relationship categories, attribute/value-propagation, value-propagation, and value-constraint and show that even in these simple cases a precise formulation requires modal notions in addition to first-order logic. These formulations are related to recent work in information retrieval and ontology evaluation.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  2. Carvalho, J.R. de; Cordeiro, M.I.; Lopes, A.; Vieira, M.: Meta-information about MARC : an XML framework for validation, explanation and help systems (2004) 0.04 
    0.043804124 = product of:
  0.08760825 = sum of:
    0.08760825 = sum of:
      0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038116705 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
      0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049491543 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2848, 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=2848)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.131-137
  3. Vellucci, S.L.: Metadata and authority control (2000) 0.04 
    0.043804124 = product of:
  0.08760825 = sum of:
    0.08760825 = sum of:
      0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038116705 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
      0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049491543 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 180, 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=180)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A variety of information communities have developed metadata schemes to meet the needs of their own users. The ability of libraries to incorporate and use multiple metadata schemes in current library systems will depend on the compatibility of imported data with existing catalog data. Authority control will play an important role in metadata interoperability. In this article, I discuss factors for successful authority control in current library catalogs, which include operation in a well-defined and bounded universe, application of principles and standard practices to access point creation, reference to authoritative lists, and bibliographic record creation by highly trained individuals. Metadata characteristics and environmental models are examined and the likelihood of successful authority control is explored for a variety of metadata environments.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  4. Yee, R.; Beaubien, R.: ¬A preliminary crosswalk from METS to IMS content packaging (2004) 0.04 
    0.03754639 = product of:
  0.07509278 = sum of:
    0.07509278 = sum of:
      0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03267146 = score(doc=4752,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 4752, 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=4752)
      0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042421322 = score(doc=4752,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4752, 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=4752)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    As educational technology becomes pervasive, demand will grow for library content to be incorporated into courseware. Among the barriers impeding interoperability between libraries and educational tools is the difference in specifications commonly used for the exchange of digital objects and metadata. Among libraries, Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) is a new but increasingly popular standard; the IMS content-package (IMS-CP) plays a parallel role in educational technology. This article describes how METS-encoded library content can be converted into digital objects for IMS-compliant systems through an XSLT-based crosswalk. The conceptual models behind METS and IMS-CP are compared, the design and limitations of an XSLT-based translation are described, and the crosswalks are related to other techniques to enhance interoperability.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.69-81
  5. Kim, H.L.; Scerri, S.; Breslin, J.G.; Decker, S.; Kim, H.G.: ¬The state of the art in tag ontologies : a semantic model for tagging and folksonomies (2008) 0.03 
    0.03128866 = product of:
  0.06257732 = sum of:
    0.06257732 = sum of:
      0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027226217 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
      0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0353511 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2650, 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=2650)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    There is a growing interest into how we represent and share tagging data in collaborative tagging systems. Conventional tags, meaning freely created tags that are not associated with a structured ontology, are not naturally suited for collaborative processes, due to linguistic and grammatical variations, as well as human typing errors. Additionally, tags reflect personal views of the world by individual users, and are not normalised for synonymy, morphology or any other mapping. Our view is that the conventional approach provides very limited semantic value for collaboration. Moreover, in cases where there is some semantic value, automatically sharing semantics via computer manipulations is extremely problematic. This paper explores these problems by discussing approaches for collaborative tagging activities at a semantic level, and presenting conceptual models for collaborative tagging activities and folksonomies. We present criteria for the comparison of existing tag ontologies and discuss their strengths and weaknesses in relation to these criteria.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  6. Andresen, L.: Metadata in Denmark (2000) 0.03 
    0.028280882 = product of:
  0.056561764 = sum of:
    0.056561764 = product of:
      0.11312353 = sum of:
        0.11312353 = weight(_text_:22 in 4899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11312353 = score(doc=4899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4899, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4899)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    16. 7.2000 20:58:22
  7. MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications (2004) 0.03 
    0.028280882 = product of:
  0.056561764 = sum of:
    0.056561764 = product of:
      0.11312353 = sum of:
        0.11312353 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11312353 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1
  8. Rice, R.: Applying DC to institutional data repositories (2008) 0.03 
    0.025030928 = product of:
  0.050061855 = sum of:
    0.050061855 = sum of:
      0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 2664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021780973 = score(doc=2664,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 2664, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2664)
      0.028280882 = weight(_text_:22 in 2664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028280882 = score(doc=2664,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2664, 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=2664)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    DISC-UK DataShare (2007-2009), a project led by the University of Edinburgh and funded by JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee, UK), arises from an existing consortium of academic data support professionals working in the domain of social science datasets (Data Information Specialists Committee-UK). We are working together across four universities with colleagues engaged in managing open access repositories for e-prints. Our project supports 'early adopter' academics who wish to openly share datasets and presents a model for depositing 'orphaned datasets' that are not being deposited in subject-domain data archives/centres. Outputs from the project are intended to help to demystify data as complex objects in repositories, and assist other institutional repository managers in overcoming barriers to incorporating research data. By building on lessons learned from recent JISC-funded data repository projects such as SToRe and GRADE the project will help realize the vision of the Digital Repositories Roadmap, e.g. the milestone under Data, "Institutions need to invest in research data repositories" (Heery and Powell, 2006). Application of appropriate metadata is an important area of development for the project. Datasets are not different from other digital materials in that they need to be described, not just for discovery but also for preservation and re-use. The GRADE project found that for geo-spatial datasets, Dublin Core metadata (with geo-spatial enhancements such as a bounding box for the 'coverage' property) was sufficient for discovery within a DSpace repository, though more indepth metadata or documentation was required for re-use after downloading. The project partners are examining other metadata schemas such as the Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) versions 2 and 3, used primarily by social science data archives (Martinez, 2008). Crosswalks from the DDI to qualified Dublin Core are important for describing research datasets at the study level (as opposed to the variable level which is largely out of scope for this project). DataShare is benefiting from work of of the DRIADE project (application profile development for evolutionary biology) (Carrier, et al, 2007), eBank UK (developed an application profile for crystallography data) and GAP (Geospatial Application Profile, in progress) in defining interoperable Dublin Core qualified metadata elements and their application to datasets for each partner repository. The solution devised at Edinburgh for DSpace will be covered in the poster.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  9. Moen, W.E.: ¬The metadata approach to accessing government information (2001) 0.02 
    0.024745772 = product of:
  0.049491543 = sum of:
    0.049491543 = product of:
      0.09898309 = sum of:
        0.09898309 = weight(_text_:22 in 4407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09898309 = score(doc=4407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4407, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    28. 3.2002 9:22:34
  10. MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications (2004) 0.02 
    0.024745772 = product of:
  0.049491543 = sum of:
    0.049491543 = product of:
      0.09898309 = sum of:
        0.09898309 = weight(_text_:22 in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09898309 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7196, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7196)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1
  11. MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications part 2 (2004) 0.02 
    0.024745772 = product of:
  0.049491543 = sum of:
    0.049491543 = product of:
      0.09898309 = sum of:
        0.09898309 = weight(_text_:22 in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09898309 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2841, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2841)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2
  12. Medeiros, N.: Metadata : semantics plus structure plus syntax (2000) 0.02 
    0.021780973 = product of:
  0.043561947 = sum of:
    0.043561947 = product of:
      0.08712389 = sum of:
        0.08712389 = weight(_text_:systems in 3899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08712389 = score(doc=3899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.5432656 = fieldWeight in 3899, 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=3899)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    OCLC systems and services. 16(2000) no.2, S.54-56
  13. Broughton, V.: Automatic metadata generation : Digital resource description without human intervention (2007) 0.02 
    0.021210661 = product of:
  0.042421322 = sum of:
    0.042421322 = product of:
      0.084842645 = sum of:
        0.084842645 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084842645 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, 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=6048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 9.2007 15:41:14
  14. Tennant, R.: ¬A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty-first century (2004) 0.02 
    0.019997604 = product of:
  0.03999521 = sum of:
    0.03999521 = product of:
      0.07999042 = sum of:
        0.07999042 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07999042 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    9.12.2005 19:22:38
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.175-181
  15. Ward, J.: Unqualified Dublin Core usage in OAI-PMH data providers (2004) 0.02 
    0.019058352 = product of:
  0.038116705 = sum of:
    0.038116705 = product of:
      0.07623341 = sum of:
        0.07623341 = weight(_text_:systems in 4166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07623341 = score(doc=4166,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.47535738 = fieldWeight in 4166, 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=4166)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    OCLC systems and services. 20(2004) no.1, S.40-47
  16. Kashyap, V.; Sheth, A.: Information brokering across heterogeneous digital data : a metadata-based approach (2000) 0.02 
    0.01633573 = product of:
  0.03267146 = sum of:
    0.03267146 = product of:
      0.06534292 = sum of:
        0.06534292 = weight(_text_:systems in 6390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06534292 = score(doc=6390,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 6390, 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=6390)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Series
    Advances in database systems
  17. Proffitt, M.: Pulling it all together : use of METS in RLG cultural materials service (2004) 0.01 
    0.014140441 = product of:
  0.028280882 = sum of:
    0.028280882 = product of:
      0.056561764 = sum of:
        0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056561764 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 767, 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=767)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.65-68
  18. McCallum, S.H.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) (2004) 0.01 
    0.014140441 = product of:
  0.028280882 = sum of:
    0.028280882 = product of:
      0.056561764 = sum of:
        0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056561764 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 81, 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=81)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.82-88
  19. Wusteman, J.: Whither HTML? (2004) 0.01 
    0.014140441 = product of:
  0.028280882 = sum of:
    0.028280882 = product of:
      0.056561764 = sum of:
        0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 1001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056561764 = score(doc=1001,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1001, 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=1001)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.99-105
  20. Gardner, T.; Iannella, R.: Architecture and software solutions (2000) 0.01 
    0.014140441 = product of:
  0.028280882 = sum of:
    0.028280882 = product of:
      0.056561764 = sum of:
        0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056561764 = score(doc=4867,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4867, 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=4867)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 6.2002 19:38:24

Authors

Languages

  • e 76
  • d 5
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 70
  • el 6
  • m 6
  • s 5
  • b 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications