Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0661608 = product of:
  0.1323216 = sum of:
    0.08056618 = weight(_text_:social in 5934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08056618 = score(doc=5934,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.43614143 = fieldWeight in 5934, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5934)
    0.051755413 = product of:
      0.10351083 = sum of:
        0.10351083 = weight(_text_:aspects in 5934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10351083 = score(doc=5934,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.4943606 = fieldWeight in 5934, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5934)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

LCSH

Information resources / Social aspects

Subject

Information resources / Social aspects

0.016914926 = product of:
  0.033829853 = sum of:
    0.02441524 = weight(_text_:social in 2514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02441524 = score(doc=2514,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.13217081 = fieldWeight in 2514, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2514)
    0.009414612 = product of:
      0.018829225 = sum of:
        0.018829225 = weight(_text_:22 in 2514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018829225 = score(doc=2514,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 2514, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2514)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Dervos, D.A., A. Coleman: A common sense approach to defining data, information, and metadata. - Keränen, S.: Equivalence and focus of translation in multicultural thesaurus construction. - Dabbadie, M., J.M. Blancherie: Alexandria, a multilingual dictionary for knowledge management purposes. - Rosemblat, G., L. Graham: Cross-language search in a monolingual health information system: flexible designs and lexical processes. - Garcia Marco, F.J.: Understanding the categories and dynamics of multimedia information: a model for analysing multimedia information. - Afolabi, B., O. Thiery: Using users' expectations to adapt business intelligence systems. - Zimmermann, K., J. Mimkes u. H.U. Kamke: An ontology framework for e-learning in the knowledge society. - Jacob, E.K., H. Albrechtsen u. N. George: Empirical analysis and evaluation of a metadata scheme for representing pedagogical resources in a digital library for educators. - Breitenstein, M.: Global unity: Otto Neurath and the International Encyclopedia of United Science. - Andersen, J.: Social change, modernity and bibliography: bibliography as a document and a genre in the global learning society. - Miksa, S.D., WE. Moen u. G. Snyder u.a.: Metadata assistance of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Record's four user tasks: a report on the MARC content designation utilization (MCDU) project. - Salaba, A., M.L. Zeng u. M. Zumer: Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records. - Frâncu, V.: Subjects in FRBR and poly-hierarchical thesauri as possible knowledge organization tools. - Peschl, M.F.: Knowledge-oriented educational processes from knowledge transfer to collective knowledge creation and innovation. - Miller, S.J., M.J. Fox u. H.L. Lee u.a.: Great expectations: professionals' perceptions and knowledge organization curricula. - Pajarillo, E.J.Y.: A qualitative research on the use of knowledge organization in nursing information behavior.

Date

27.12.2008 11:22:36

0.011509455 = product of:
  0.04603782 = sum of:
    0.04603782 = weight(_text_:social in 2785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04603782 = score(doc=2785,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.24922368 = fieldWeight in 2785, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2785)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

Content

Provocations -- What are data? -- Data scholarship -- Data diversity -- Data scholarship in the sciences -- Data scholarship in the social sciences -- Data scholarship in the humanities -- Sharing, releasing, and reusing data -- Credit, attribution, and discovery of data -- What to keep and why to keep them.

0.008138414 = product of:
  0.032553654 = sum of:
    0.032553654 = weight(_text_:social in 5134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032553654 = score(doc=5134,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.17622775 = fieldWeight in 5134, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5134)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Metadata research has emerged as a discipline cross-cutting many domains, focused on the provision of distributed descriptions (often called annotations) to Web resources or applications. Such associated descriptions are supposed to serve as a foundation for advanced services in many application areas, including search and location, personalization, federation of repositories and automated delivery of information. Indeed, the Semantic Web is in itself a concrete technological framework for ontology-based metadata. For example, Web-based social networking requires metadata describing people and their interrelations, and large databases with biological information use complex and detailed metadata schemas for more precise and informed search strategies. There is a wide diversity in the languages and idioms used for providing meta-descriptions, from simple structured text in metadata schemas to formal annotations using ontologies, and the technologies for storing, sharing and exploiting meta-descriptions are also diverse and evolve rapidly. In addition, there is a proliferation of schemas and standards related to metadata, resulting in a complex and moving technological landscape - hence, the need for specialized knowledge and skills in this area. The Handbook of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies is intended as an authoritative reference for students, practitioners and researchers, serving as a roadmap for the variety of metadata schemas and ontologies available in a number of key domain areas, including culture, biology, education, healthcare, engineering and library science.

0.006276408 = product of:
  0.025105633 = sum of:
    0.025105633 = product of:
      0.050211266 = sum of:
        0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050211266 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4654, 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=4654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2017 17:12:50

0.0039227554 = product of:
  0.015691021 = sum of:
    0.015691021 = product of:
      0.031382043 = sum of:
        0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 1753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031382043 = score(doc=1753,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1753, 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=1753)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2008 12:26:32

0.0036968153 = product of:
  0.014787261 = sum of:
    0.014787261 = product of:
      0.029574523 = sum of:
        0.029574523 = weight(_text_:aspects in 440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029574523 = score(doc=440,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.14124589 = fieldWeight in 440, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=440)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.4, S.607-608 (A.D. Petrou): "One small example of a tension in the book's chapters can be expressed as: What exactly falls under information management (IM) as a domain of study? Is it content and research about a traditional life cycle of information, or is it the latter and also any other important issue in information research, such as culture, virtual reality, and online behavior, and communities of practice? In chapter 13, T.D. Wilson states, "Information management is the management of the life cycle to the point of delivery to the information user" (p. 164), yet as he also recognizes, other aspects of information are now included as IM's study matter. On p. 163 of the same chapter, Wilson offers Figure 12.2, titled "The extended life cycle of information." The life cycle in this case includes the following information stages: acquisition, organization, storage, retrieval, access and lending, and dissemination. All of these six stages Wilson labels, inside the circle, as IM. The rest of the extended information life cycle is information use, which includes use, sharing, and application. Chapter 3's author, Gunilla Widen-Wulff, quoting Davenport (1994), states "effective IM is about helping people make effective use of the information, rather than the machines" (p. 31). Widen-Wulff, however, addresses IM from an information culture perspective. To review the book's critical content, IM definitions and research methodology and methods reported in chapters are critically summarized next. This will provide basic information for anyone interested in using the book as an information research reader.
Allen strikes a realistic note of the institutional importance of trust across teams of academics and administrators, and subsequently of the political behavior of academics and computer services administrators/ managers and the relation of the latter to information strategy formulation. Research was conducted at 12 university sites, information strategy process documents were analyzed, and 20 informants were interviewed at each site. The study's research focused on cross-case analysis (instead of an iterative approach to collection and analysis of data), research was longitudinal, and a grounded theory approach was employed. According to the author, findings confirm a similar position taken by Pettigrew (1977): "development of information strategy is the outcome of negotiated political relations" (p. 177). And for such negotiated political relations, the author concludes, trust is a necessary ingredient. It is important to reiterate that IM's scope requires a diversity of study methods and methodologies to address all issues involved. A multiplicity of information and IM definitions and the number of local and global issues that must be addressed, along with information's significance as resource and/or commodity in different types of organizations, necessitate diversity in information research. Each chapter has demonstrated a need to cover many aspects of IM and to ensure that there is as much clarity in that effort as possible, and yet differentiation of IM from other related fields such as KM clearly remains a top issue. As with any other effort to define a field's boundaries, the task at hand is not easy, but while definitions and boundaries are being worked out, there is always an opportunity to engage in fruitful discussions about scope and critical issues in information research."