Search (62 results, page 1 of 4)

0.044713248 = product of:
  0.17885299 = sum of:
    0.17885299 = weight(_text_:engines in 4652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17885299 = score(doc=4652,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.7858995 = fieldWeight in 4652, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4652)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.03832564 = product of:
  0.15330257 = sum of:
    0.15330257 = weight(_text_:engines in 7098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15330257 = score(doc=7098,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.67362815 = fieldWeight in 7098, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7098)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.027659154 = product of:
  0.110636614 = sum of:
    0.110636614 = weight(_text_:engines in 5598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.110636614 = score(doc=5598,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.4861493 = fieldWeight in 5598, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5598)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to show how information in digital collections that have been catalogued using high-quality metadata can be retrieved more easily by users of search engines such as Google. Design/methodology/approach - The research and proposals described arose from an investigation into the observed phenomenon that pages from the Glasgow Digital Library (gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk) were regularly appearing near the top of Google search results shortly after publication, without any deliberate effort to achieve this. The reasons for this phenomenon are now well understood and are described in the second part of the paper. The first part provides context with a review of the impact of Google and a summary of recent initiatives by commercial publishers to make their content more visible to search engines. Findings - The literature research provides firm evidence of a trend amongst publishers to ensure that their online content is indexed by Google, in recognition of its popularity with internet users. The practical research demonstrates how search engine accessibility can be compatible with use of established collection management principles and high-quality metadata. Originality/value - The concept of data shoogling is introduced, involving some simple techniques for metadata optimisation. Details of its practical application are given, to illustrate how those working in academic, cultural and public-sector organisations could make their digital collections more easily accessible via search engines, without compromising any existing standards and practices.

0.022356624 = product of:
  0.089426495 = sum of:
    0.089426495 = weight(_text_:engines in 4762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.089426495 = score(doc=4762,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.39294976 = fieldWeight in 4762, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4762)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

For many years metadata has been recognised as a significant component of the digital information environment. Substantial work has gone into creating complex metadata schemes for describing digital content. Yet increasingly Web search engines, and Google in particular, are the primary means of discovering and selecting digital resources, although they make little use of metadata. This article considers how digital libraries can gain more value from their metadata by adapting it for Google users, while still following well-established principles and standards for cataloguing and digital preservation.

0.022356624 = product of:
  0.089426495 = sum of:
    0.089426495 = weight(_text_:engines in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.089426495 = score(doc=1155,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.39294976 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper proposes a model for metadata crosswalks that associates three pieces of information: the crosswalk, the source metadata standard, and the target metadata standard, each of which may have a machine-readable encoding and human-readable description. The crosswalks are encoded as METS records that are made available to a repository for processing by search engines, OAI harvesters, and custom-designed Web services. The METS object brings together all of the information required to access and interpret crosswalks and represents a significant improvement over previously available formats. But it raises questions about how best to describe these complex objects and exposes gaps that must eventually be filled in by the digital library community.

0.018066881 = product of:
  0.072267525 = sum of:
    0.072267525 = weight(_text_:engines in 2731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072267525 = score(doc=2731,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.31755137 = fieldWeight in 2731, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2731)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We propose an extension of a mediator architecture. This extension is oriented to ontology-driven data integration. In our architecture ontologies are not managed by an extemal component or service, but are integrated in the mediation layer. This approach implies rethinking the mediator design, but at the same time provides advantages from a database perspective. Some of these advantages include the application of optimization and evaluation techniques that use and combine information from all abstraction levels (physical schema, logical schema and semantic information defined by ontology). 1. Introduction Although the Web is probably the richest information repository in human history, users cannot specify what they want from it. Two major problems that arise in current search engines (Heflin, 2001) are: a) polysemy, when the same word is used with different meanings; b) synonymy, when two different words have the same meaning. Polysemy causes irrelevant information retrieval. On the other hand, synonymy produces lost of useful documents. The lack of a capability to understand the context of the words and the relationships among required terms, explains many of the lost and false results produced by search engines. The Semantic Web will bring structure to the meaningful content of Web pages, giving semantic relationships among terms and possibly avoiding the previous problems. Various proposals have appeared for meta-data representation and communication standards, and other services and tools that may eventually merge into the global Semantic Web (Berners-lee, 2001). Hopefully, in the next few years we will see the universal adoption of open standards for representation and sharing of meta-information. In this environment, software agents roaming from page to page can readily carry out sophisticated tasks for users (Berners-Lee, 2001). In this context, ontologies can be seen as metadata that represent semantic of data; providing a knowledge domain standard vocabulary, like DTDs and XML Schema do. If its pages were so structured, the Web could be seen as a heterogeneous collection of autonomous databases. This suggests that techniques developed in the Database area could be useful. Database research mainly deals with efficient storage and retrieval and with powerful query languages.

0.013290926 = product of:
  0.053163704 = sum of:
    0.053163704 = product of:
      0.10632741 = sum of:
        0.10632741 = weight(_text_:programming in 2093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10632741 = score(doc=2093,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29361802 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5552235 = idf(docFreq=170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.36212835 = fieldWeight in 2093, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5552235 = idf(docFreq=170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2093)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper deals with the problem of modeling Web information resources using expert knowledge and personalized user information for improved Web searching capabilities. We propose a "Web information space" model, which is composed of Web-based information resources (HTML/XML [Hypertext Markup Language/Extensible Markup Language] documents an the Web), expert advice repositories (domain-expert-specified metadata for information resources), and personalized information about users (captured as user profiles that indicate users' preferences about experts as well as users' knowledge about topics). Expert advice, the heart of the Web information space model, is specified using topics and relationships among topics (called metalinks), along the lines of the recently proposed topic maps. Topics and metalinks constitute metadata that describe the contents of the underlying HTML/XML Web resources. The metadata specification process is semiautomated, and it exploits XML DTDs (Document Type Definition) to allow domain-expert guided mapping of DTD elements to topics and metalinks. The expert advice is stored in an object-relational database management system (DBMS). To demonstrate the practicality and usability of the proposed Web information space model, we created a prototype expert advice repository of more than one million topics/metalinks for DBLP (Database and Logic Programming) Bibliography data set. We also present a query interface that provides sophisticated querying fa cilities for DBLP Bibliography resources using the expert advice repository.

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."

0.012137249 = 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.

0.010620093 = 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 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

0.0060686246 = 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

0.0060686246 = product of:
  0.024274498 = sum of:
    0.024274498 = product of:
      0.048548996 = sum of:
        0.048548996 = weight(_text_:22 in 1001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048548996 = score(doc=1001,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.99-105

0.0060686246 = product of:
  0.024274498 = sum of:
    0.024274498 = product of:
      0.048548996 = sum of:
        0.048548996 = weight(_text_:22 in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048548996 = score(doc=4867,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:38:24