Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.053949714 = product of:
  0.08092457 = sum of:
    0.053679425 = weight(_text_:search in 2237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053679425 = score(doc=2237,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.30720934 = fieldWeight in 2237, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2237)
    0.027245143 = product of:
      0.054490287 = sum of:
        0.054490287 = weight(_text_:22 in 2237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054490287 = score(doc=2237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2237, 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=2237)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Discusses the possibilities and difficulties encountered when using a thematic index to search contemporary art databanks. Jaconde and Videomuseum, 2 French databanks, are used as examples. the core problems found in the study are the methods and limits of indexing in both systems. A thematic index should be developed that is better adapted to 20th century art, based on the complementary and reciprocal relationship between text and image, and which fully exploits hypertext

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.01816343 = product of:
  0.054490287 = sum of:
    0.054490287 = product of:
      0.10898057 = sum of:
        0.10898057 = weight(_text_:22 in 820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10898057 = score(doc=820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 820, 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=820)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

5. 3.1999 17:40:22

0.015815454 = product of:
  0.04744636 = sum of:
    0.04744636 = weight(_text_:search in 4289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04744636 = score(doc=4289,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.27153727 = fieldWeight in 4289, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4289)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article begins by presenting and discussing the distinction between record-oriented and pattern-oriented search. Examples or recordoriented (or item-oriented) questions include: "What (or how many, etc.) glass items made prior to 100 A.D. do we have in our collection?" and "How many paintings featuring dogs do we have that were painted during the 19th century, and who painted them?" Standard database systems are well suited to answering such questions, based on the data in, for example, a collections management system. Examples of pattern-oriented questions include: "How does the (apparent) productoin of glass objects vary over time between 400 B.C. and 100 A.D.?" and "What other animals are present in paintings with dogs (painted during the 19th century and in our collection)?" Standard database systems are not well suited to answering these sorts of questions, even though the basic data is properly stored in them. To answer pattern-oriented questions it is the accepted solution to transform the underlying (relational) data to what is called the data cube or cross tabulation form. We discuss how this can be done for non-numeric data, such as are found in museum collections and archives

0.013622571 = product of:
  0.040867712 = sum of:
    0.040867712 = product of:
      0.081735425 = sum of:
        0.081735425 = weight(_text_:22 in 362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081735425 = score(doc=362,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 362, 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=362)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Technik und Information: Markt, Medien und Methoden. Deutscher Dokumentartag 1992, Technische Universität Berlin, 22.-25.9.1992. Hrsg.: W. Neubauer u. K.-H. Meier

0.011352143 = product of:
  0.03405643 = sum of:
    0.03405643 = product of:
      0.06811286 = sum of:
        0.06811286 = weight(_text_:22 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06811286 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4152, 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=4152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Information und Märkte: 50. Deutscher Dokumentartag 1998, Kongreß der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Dokumentation e.V. (DGD), Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, 22.-24. September 1998. Hrsg. von Marlies Ockenfeld u. Gerhard J. Mantwill