Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × type_ss:"n"
  • × language_ss:"e"
  1. ISO 25964 Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies (2008) 0.04
    0.037582483 = product of:
      0.056373723 = sum of:
        0.03486581 = weight(_text_:search in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03486581 = score(doc=1169,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.19953834 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
        0.021507913 = product of:
          0.043015826 = sum of:
            0.043015826 = weight(_text_:engines in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043015826 = score(doc=1169,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05027291 = queryNorm
                0.16840704 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    T.1: Today's thesauri are mostly electronic tools, having moved on from the paper-based era when thesaurus standards were first developed. They are built and maintained with the support of software and need to integrate with other software, such as search engines and content management systems. Whereas in the past thesauri were designed for information professionals trained in indexing and searching, today there is a demand for vocabularies that untrained users will find to be intuitive. ISO 25964 makes the transition needed for the world of electronic information management. However, part 1 retains the assumption that human intellect is usually involved in the selection of indexing terms and in the selection of search terms. If both the indexer and the searcher are guided to choose the same term for the same concept, then relevant documents will be retrieved. This is the main principle underlying thesaurus design, even though a thesaurus built for human users may also be applied in situations where computers make the choices. Efficient exchange of data is a vital component of thesaurus management and exploitation. Hence the inclusion in this standard of recommendations for exchange formats and protocols. Adoption of these will facilitate interoperability between thesaurus management systems and the other computer applications, such as indexing and retrieval systems, that will utilize the data. Thesauri are typically used in post-coordinate retrieval systems, but may also be applied to hierarchical directories, pre-coordinate indexes and classification systems. Increasingly, thesaurus applications need to mesh with others, such as automatic categorization schemes, free-text search systems, etc. Part 2 of ISO 25964 describes additional types of structured vocabulary and gives recommendations to enable interoperation of the vocabularies at all stages of the information storage and retrieval process.
  2. ISO 10163: Search and retrieve application : protocol specification for open system interconnection (1992) 0.04
    0.035786286 = product of:
      0.10735885 = sum of:
        0.10735885 = weight(_text_:search in 8607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10735885 = score(doc=8607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.6144187 = fieldWeight in 8607, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=8607)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
  3. OWL Web Ontology Language Use Cases and Requirements (2004) 0.02
    0.017893143 = product of:
      0.053679425 = sum of:
        0.053679425 = weight(_text_:search in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053679425 = score(doc=4686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.30720934 = fieldWeight in 4686, 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=4686)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    This document specifies usage scenarios, goals and requirements for a web ontology language. An ontology formally defines a common set of terms that are used to describe and represent a domain. Ontologies can be used by automated tools to power advanced services such as more accurate web search, intelligent software agents and knowledge management.
  4. Agnese Galeffi, A.; Bertolini, M.V.; Bothmann, R.L.; Rodríguez, E.E.; McGarry, D.: Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (ICP) 2016 (2016) 0.02
    0.015495917 = product of:
      0.04648775 = sum of:
        0.04648775 = weight(_text_:search in 3284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04648775 = score(doc=3284,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.2660511 = fieldWeight in 3284, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3284)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    The original Statement of Principles - commonly known as the "Paris Principles" - was approved by the International Conference on Cataloguing Principles in 1961. Its goal of serving as a basis for international standardization in cataloguing has certainly been achieved: most of the cataloguing codes that were developed worldwide since that time have followed the Principles strictly or at least to a high degree. More than fifty years later, having a common set of international cataloguing principles is still necessary as cataloguers and users around the world use online catalogues as search and discovery systems. At the beginning of the 21st century, IFLA produced a new statement of principles (published in 2009) applicable to online library catalogues and beyond. The current version has been reviewed and updated in 2014 and 2015, and approved in 2016. The 2009 Statement of Principles replaced and explicitly broadened the scope of the Paris Principles from just textual resources to all types of resources, and from just the choice and form of entry to all aspects of bibliographic and authority data used in library catalogues. It included not only principles and objectives, but also guiding rules that should be included in cataloguing codes internationally, as well as guidance on search and retrieval capabilities. This 2016 edition takes into consideration new categories of users, the open access environment, the interoperability and the accessibility of data, features of discovery tools and the significant change of user behaviour in general. This statement builds on the great cataloguing traditions of the world, as well as on the conceptual models in the IFLA Functional Requirements family.
    Content
    This statement covers: - Scope - General Principles - Entities, Attributes, and Relationships - Bibliographic Description - Access Points - Objectives and Functions of the Catalogue - Foundations for Search Capabilities Vgl. auch: http://www.ifla.org/publications/node/11015.
  5. Z39.19-1993: Guidelines for the construction, format, and management of monolingual thesauri (1993) 0.01
    0.009081715 = product of:
      0.027245143 = sum of:
        0.027245143 = product of:
          0.054490287 = sum of:
            0.054490287 = weight(_text_:22 in 4092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.054490287 = score(doc=4092,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05027291 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4092, 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=4092)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Knowledge organization 22(1995) no.3/4, S.180-181 (M. Hudon)
  6. OWL Web Ontology Language Test Cases (2004) 0.01
    0.009081715 = product of:
      0.027245143 = sum of:
        0.027245143 = product of:
          0.054490287 = sum of:
            0.054490287 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.054490287 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05027291 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4685, 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=4685)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    14. 8.2011 13:33:22
  7. Miller, E.; Schloss. B.; Lassila, O.; Swick, R.R.: Resource Description Framework (RDF) : model and syntax (1997) 0.01
    0.0078282505 = product of:
      0.02348475 = sum of:
        0.02348475 = weight(_text_:search in 5903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02348475 = score(doc=5903,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.1344041 = fieldWeight in 5903, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5903)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    RDF - the Resource Description Framework - is a foundation for processing metadata; it provides interoperability between applications that exchange machine-understandable information on the Web. RDF emphasizes facilities to enable automated processing of Web resources. RDF metadata can be used in a variety of application areas; for example: in resource discovery to provide better search engine capabilities; in cataloging for describing the content and content relationships available at a particular Web site, page, or digital library; by intelligent software agents to facilitate knowledge sharing and exchange; in content rating; in describing collections of pages that represent a single logical "document"; for describing intellectual property rights of Web pages, and in many others. RDF with digital signatures will be key to building the "Web of Trust" for electronic commerce, collaboration, and other applications. Metadata is "data about data" or specifically in the context of RDF "data describing web resources." The distinction between "data" and "metadata" is not an absolute one; it is a distinction created primarily by a particular application. Many times the same resource will be interpreted in both ways simultaneously. RDF encourages this view by using XML as the encoding syntax for the metadata. The resources being described by RDF are, in general, anything that can be named via a URI. The broad goal of RDF is to define a mechanism for describing resources that makes no assumptions about a particular application domain, nor defines the semantics of any application domain. The definition of the mechanism should be domain neutral, yet the mechanism should be suitable for describing information about any domain. This document introduces a model for representing RDF metadata and one syntax for expressing and transporting this metadata in a manner that maximizes the interoperability of independently developed web servers and clients. The syntax described in this document is best considered as a "serialization syntax" for the underlying RDF representation model. The serialization syntax is XML, XML being the W3C's work-in-progress to define a richer Web syntax for a variety of applications. RDF and XML are complementary; there will be alternate ways to represent the same RDF data model, some more suitable for direct human authoring. Future work may lead to including such alternatives in this document.