Search (107 results, page 2 of 6)

0.012775214 = product of:
  0.051100858 = sum of:
    0.051100858 = weight(_text_:engines in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051100858 = score(doc=3197,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.22454272 = fieldWeight in 3197, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3197)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez.: JASIST 56(2005) no.13, S.1264 (W. Koehler: "Priscilla Caplan provides us with a sweeping but very welcome survey of the various approaches to metadata in practice or proposed in libraries and archives today. One of the key strengths of the book and paradoxically one of its key weaknesses is that the work is descriptive in nature. While relationships between one system and another may be noted, no general conclusions of a practical or theoretical nature are drawn of the relative merits of one metadata or metametadata scheure as against another. That said, let us remember that this is an American Library Association publication, published as a descriptive resource. Caplan does very well what she sets out to do. The work is divided into two parts: "Principles and Practice" and "Metadata Schemes," and is further subdivided into eighteen chapters. The book begins with short yet more than adequate chapters defining terms, vocabularies, and concepts. It discusses interoperability and the various levels of quality among systems. Perhaps Chapter 5, "Metadata and the Web" is the weakest chapter of the work. There is a brief discussion of how search engines work and some of the more recent initiatives (e.g., the Semantic Web) to develop better retrieval agents. The chapter is weck not in its description but in what it fails to discuss. The second section, "Metadata Schemes," which encompasses chapters six through eighteen, is particularly rich. Thirteen different metadata or metametadata schema are described to provide the interested librarian with a better than adequate introduction to the purpose, application, and operability of each metadata scheme. These are: library cataloging (chiefly MARC), TEI, Dublin Core, Archival Description and EAD, Art and Architecture, GILS, Education, ONIX, Geospatial, Data Documentation Initiative, Administrative Metadata, Structural Metadata, and Rights Metadata. The last three chapters introduce concepts heretofore "foreign" to the realm of the catalog or metadata. Descriptive metadata was . . . intended to help in finding, discovering, and identifying an information resource." (p. 151) Administrative metadata is an aid to ". . . the owners or caretakers of the resource." Structural metadata describe the relationships of data elements. Rights metadata describe (or as Caplan points out, may describe, as definition is still as yet ambiguous) end user rights to use and reproduce material in digital format. Keeping in mind that the work is intended for the general practitioner librarian, the book has a particularly useful glossary and index. Caplan also provides useful suggestions for additional reading at the end of each chapter. 1 intend to adopt Metadata Fundamentals for All Librarians when next I teach a digital cataloging course. Caplan's book provides an excellent introduction to the basic concepts. It is, however, not a "cookbook" nor a guidebook into the complexities of the application of any metadata scheme."

0.012775214 = product of:
  0.051100858 = sum of:
    0.051100858 = weight(_text_:engines in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051100858 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.22454272 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to examine the current state of Linked Data (LD) in archival moving image description, and propose ways in which current metadata records can be enriched and enhanced by interlinking such metadata with relevant information found in other data sets. Design/methodology/approach Several possible metadata models for moving image production and archiving are considered, including models from records management, digital curation, and the recent BIBFRAME AV Modeling Study. This research also explores how mappings between archival moving image records and relevant external data sources might be drawn, and what gaps exist between current vocabularies and what is needed to record and make accessible the full lifecycle of archiving through production, use, and reuse. Findings The author notes several major impediments to implementation of LD for archival moving images. The various pieces of information about creators, places, and events found in moving image records are not easily connected to relevant information in other sources because they are often not semantically defined within the record and can be hidden in unstructured fields. Libraries, archives, and museums must work on aligning the various vocabularies and schemas of potential value for archival moving image description to enable interlinking between vocabularies currently in use and those which are used by external data sets. Alignment of vocabularies is often complicated by mismatches in granularity between vocabularies. Research limitations/implications The focus is on how these models inform functional requirements for access and other archival activities, and how the field might benefit from having a common metadata model for critical archival descriptive activities. Practical implications By having a shared model, archivists may more easily align current vocabularies and develop new vocabularies and schemas to address the needs of moving image data creators and scholars. Originality/value Moving image archives, like other cultural institutions with significant heritage holdings, can benefit tremendously from investing in the semantic definition of information found in their information databases. While commercial entities such as search engines and data providers have already embraced the opportunities that semantic search provides for resource discovery, most non-commercial entities are just beginning to do so. Thus, this research addresses the benefits and challenges of enriching and enhancing archival moving image records with semantically defined information via LD.

0.012137249 = product of:
  0.048548996 = sum of:
    0.048548996 = product of:
      0.09709799 = sum of:
        0.09709799 = weight(_text_:22 in 4899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09709799 = score(doc=4899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

16. 7.2000 20:58:22

0.012137249 = product of:
  0.048548996 = sum of:
    0.048548996 = product of:
      0.09709799 = sum of:
        0.09709799 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09709799 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

0.011291801 = product of:
  0.045167204 = sum of:
    0.045167204 = weight(_text_:engines in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045167204 = score(doc=1216,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.19846961 = fieldWeight in 1216, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1216)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reality is messy. Individuals perceive or define objects differently. Objects may change over time, morphing into new versions of their former selves or into things altogether different. A book can give rise to a translation, derivation, or edition, and these resulting objects are related in complex ways to each other and to the people and contexts in which they were created or transformed. Providing a normalized view of such a messy reality is a precondition for managing information. From the first library catalogs, through Melvil Dewey's Decimal Classification system in the nineteenth century, to today's MARC encoding of AACR2 cataloging rules, libraries have epitomized the process of what David Levy calls "order making", whereby catalogers impose a veneer of regularity on the natural disorder of the artifacts they encounter. The pre-digital library within which the Catalog and its standards evolved was relatively self-contained and controlled. Creating and maintaining catalog records was, and still is, the task of professionals. Today's Web, in contrast, has brought together a diversity of information management communities, with a variety of order-making standards, into what Stuart Weibel has called the Internet Commons. The sheer scale of this context has motivated a search for new ways to describe and index information. Second-generation search engines such as Google can yield astonishingly good search results, while tools such as ResearchIndex for automatic citation indexing and techniques for inferring "Web communities" from constellations of hyperlinks promise even better methods for focusing queries on information from authoritative sources. Such "automated digital libraries," according to Bill Arms, promise to radically reduce the cost of managing information. Alongside the development of such automated methods, there is increasing interest in metadata as a means of imposing pre-defined order on Web content. While the size and changeability of the Web makes professional cataloging impractical, a minimal amount of information ordering, such as that represented by the Dublin Core (DC), may vastly improve the quality of an automatic index at low cost; indeed, recent work suggests that some types of simple description may be generated with little or no human intervention.
Metadata is not monolithic. Instead, it is helpful to think of metadata as multiple views that can be projected from a single information object. Such views can form the basis of customized information services, such as search engines. Multiple views -- different types of metadata associated with a Web resource -- can facilitate a "drill-down" search paradigm, whereby people start their searches at a high level and later narrow their focus using domain-specific search categories. In Figure 1, for example, Mona Lisa may be viewed from the perspective of non-specialized searchers, with categories that are valid across domains (who painted it and when?); in the context of a museum (when and how was it acquired?); in the geo-spatial context of a walking tour using mobile devices (where is it in the gallery?); and in a legal framework (who owns the rights to its reproduction?). Multiple descriptive views imply a modular approach to metadata. Modularity is the basis of metadata architectures such as the Resource Description Framework (RDF), which permit different communities of expertise to associate and maintain multiple metadata packages for Web resources. As noted elsewhere, static association of multiple metadata packages with resources is but one way of achieving modularity. Another method is to computationally derive order-making views customized to the current needs of a client. This paper examines the evolution and scope of the Dublin Core from this perspective of metadata modularization. Dublin Core began in 1995 with a specific goal and scope -- as an easy-to-create and maintain descriptive format to facilitate cross-domain resource discovery on the Web. Over the years, this goal of "simple metadata for coarse-granularity discovery" came to mix with another goal -- that of community and domain-specific resource description and its attendant complexity. A notion of "qualified Dublin Core" evolved whereby the model for simple resource discovery -- a set of simple metadata elements in a flat, document-centric model -- would form the basis of more complex descriptions by treating the values of its elements as entities with properties ("component elements") in their own right.

0.011178312 = product of:
  0.044713248 = sum of:
    0.044713248 = weight(_text_:engines in 1257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044713248 = score(doc=1257,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.19647488 = fieldWeight in 1257, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1257)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Over the past three years, the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative has achieved a broad international consensus on the semantics of a simple element set for describing electronic resources. Since the first workshop in March 1995, which was reported in the very first issue of D-Lib Magazine, Dublin Core has been the topic of perhaps a dozen articles here. Originally intended to be simple and intuitive enough for authors to tag Web pages without special training, Dublin Core is being adapted now for more specialized uses, from government information and legal deposit to museum informatics and electronic commerce. To meet such specialized requirements, Dublin Core can be customized with additional elements or qualifiers. However, these refinements can compromise interoperability across applications. There are tradeoffs between using specific terms that precisely meet local needs versus general terms that are understood more widely. We can better understand this inevitable tension between simplicity and complexity if we recognize that metadata is a form of human language. With Dublin Core, as with a natural language, people are inclined to stretch definitions, make general terms more specific, specific terms more general, misunderstand intended meanings, and coin new terms. One goal of this paper, therefore, will be to examine the experience of some related ways to seek semantic interoperability through simplicity: planned languages, interlingua constructs, and pidgins. The problem of semantic interoperability is compounded when we consider Dublin Core in translation. All of the workshops, documents, mailing lists, user guides, and working group outputs of the Dublin Core Initiative have been in English. But in many countries and for many applications, people need a metadata standard in their own language. In principle, the broad elements of Dublin Core can be defined equally well in Bulgarian or Hindi. Since Dublin Core is a controlled standard, however, any parallel definitions need to be kept in sync as the standard evolves. Another goal of the paper, then, will be to define the conceptual and organizational problem of maintaining a metadata standard in multiple languages. In addition to a name and definition, which are meant for human consumption, each Dublin Core element has a label, or indexing token, meant for harvesting by search engines. For practical reasons, these machine-readable tokens are English-looking strings such as Creator and Subject (just as HTML tags are called HEAD, BODY, or TITLE). These tokens, which are shared by Dublin Cores in every language, ensure that metadata fields created in any particular language are indexed together across repositories. As symbols of underlying universal semantics, these tokens form the basis of semantic interoperability among the multiple Dublin Cores. As long as we limit ourselves to sharing these indexing tokens among exact translations of a simple set of fifteen broad elements, the definitions of which fit easily onto two pages, the problem of Dublin Core in multiple languages is straightforward. But nothing having to do with human language is ever so simple. Just as speakers of various languages must learn the language of Dublin Core in their own tongues, we must find the right words to talk about a metadata language that is expressable in many discipline-specific jargons and natural languages and that inevitably will evolve and change over time.

0.010620093 = product of:
  0.042480372 = sum of:
    0.042480372 = product of:
      0.084960744 = sum of:
        0.084960744 = weight(_text_:22 in 4407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084960744 = score(doc=4407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

28. 3.2002 9:22:34

0.010620093 = product of:
  0.042480372 = sum of:
    0.042480372 = product of:
      0.084960744 = sum of:
        0.084960744 = weight(_text_:22 in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084960744 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

0.010620093 = product of:
  0.042480372 = sum of:
    0.042480372 = product of:
      0.084960744 = sum of:
        0.084960744 = weight(_text_:22 in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084960744 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2

0.009102937 = product of:
  0.036411747 = sum of:
    0.036411747 = product of:
      0.072823495 = sum of:
        0.072823495 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072823495 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.008582331 = product of:
  0.034329325 = sum of:
    0.034329325 = product of:
      0.06865865 = sum of:
        0.06865865 = weight(_text_:22 in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06865865 = score(doc=2408,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2408, 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=2408)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

13. 1.2007 18:31:22

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.43-58

0.008582331 = product of:
  0.034329325 = sum of:
    0.034329325 = product of:
      0.06865865 = sum of:
        0.06865865 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06865865 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

9.12.2005 19:22:38

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.175-181

0.007585781 = product of:
  0.030343125 = sum of:
    0.030343125 = product of:
      0.06068625 = sum of:
        0.06068625 = weight(_text_:22 in 1032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06068625 = score(doc=1032,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1032, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1032)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 5.1998 18:45:36

0.007585781 = product of:
  0.030343125 = sum of:
    0.030343125 = product of:
      0.06068625 = sum of:
        0.06068625 = weight(_text_:22 in 2275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06068625 = score(doc=2275,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2275, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2275)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Bericht über den Workshop, der am 22. u. 23.6.98 in der SUB Göttingen stattfand

0.007585781 = product of:
  0.030343125 = sum of:
    0.030343125 = product of:
      0.06068625 = sum of:
        0.06068625 = weight(_text_:22 in 3280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06068625 = score(doc=3280,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3280, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3280)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou

0.007585781 = product of:
  0.030343125 = sum of:
    0.030343125 = product of:
      0.06068625 = sum of:
        0.06068625 = weight(_text_:22 in 3281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06068625 = score(doc=3281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3281, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou

0.007585781 = product of:
  0.030343125 = sum of:
    0.030343125 = product of:
      0.06068625 = sum of:
        0.06068625 = weight(_text_:22 in 3282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06068625 = score(doc=3282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3282, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3282)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou

0.0060686246 = product of:
  0.024274498 = sum of:
    0.024274498 = product of:
      0.048548996 = sum of:
        0.048548996 = weight(_text_:22 in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048548996 = score(doc=3689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3689, 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=3689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.59-73

0.0060686246 = product of:
  0.024274498 = sum of:
    0.024274498 = product of:
      0.048548996 = sum of:
        0.048548996 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048548996 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.65-68

0.0060686246 = product of:
  0.024274498 = sum of:
    0.024274498 = product of:
      0.048548996 = sum of:
        0.048548996 = weight(_text_:22 in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048548996 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.82-88