Search (71 results, page 2 of 4)

0.013267696 = product of:
  0.053070784 = sum of:
    0.053070784 = product of:
      0.15921235 = sum of:
        0.15921235 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15921235 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42493033 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Language and Information Technologies. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.cmu.edu%2F~cx%2Fpapers%2Fknowledge_based_text_representation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0SaTSvhWLTh__Uz_HtOtl3.

0.011883841 = product of:
  0.047535364 = sum of:
    0.047535364 = product of:
      0.09507073 = sum of:
        0.09507073 = weight(_text_:22 in 1496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09507073 = score(doc=1496,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1496, 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=1496)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 7.1998 18:23:25

0.011883841 = product of:
  0.047535364 = sum of:
    0.047535364 = product of:
      0.09507073 = sum of:
        0.09507073 = weight(_text_:22 in 5309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09507073 = score(doc=5309,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5309, 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=5309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:07:22

0.011883841 = product of:
  0.047535364 = sum of:
    0.047535364 = product of:
      0.09507073 = sum of:
        0.09507073 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09507073 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4635, 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=4635)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

26.11.2005 18:39:22

0.01018615 = product of:
  0.0407446 = sum of:
    0.0407446 = product of:
      0.0814892 = sum of:
        0.0814892 = weight(_text_:22 in 9) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0814892 = score(doc=9,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 9, 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=9)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 2.1997 19:50:29

0.01018615 = product of:
  0.0407446 = sum of:
    0.0407446 = product of:
      0.0814892 = sum of:
        0.0814892 = weight(_text_:22 in 3813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0814892 = score(doc=3813,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3813, 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=3813)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

18. 6.1999 9:22:36

0.01018615 = product of:
  0.0407446 = sum of:
    0.0407446 = product of:
      0.0814892 = sum of:
        0.0814892 = weight(_text_:22 in 4865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0814892 = score(doc=4865,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4865, 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=4865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:59

0.009603594 = product of:
  0.038414378 = sum of:
    0.038414378 = product of:
      0.076828755 = sum of:
        0.076828755 = weight(_text_:22 in 4204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076828755 = score(doc=4204,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 4204, 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=4204)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2018 13:24:08
22. 6.2018 13:54:52

0.00932749 = product of:
  0.03730996 = sum of:
    0.03730996 = weight(_text_:digital in 4232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03730996 = score(doc=4232,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.18871367 = fieldWeight in 4232, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4232)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This PhD-thesis describes how to effectively explore linked data on the Web. The main focus is on scenarios where users want to discover relationships between resources rather than finding out more about something specific. Searching for a specific document or piece of information fits in the theoretical framework of information retrieval and is associated with exploratory search. Exploratory search goes beyond 'looking up something' when users are seeking more detailed understanding, further investigation or navigation of the initial search results. The ideas behind exploratory search and querying linked data merge when it comes to the way knowledge is represented and indexed by machines - how data is structured and stored for optimal searchability. Queries and information should be aligned to facilitate that searches also reveal connections between results. This implies that they take into account the same semantic entities, relevant at that moment. To realize this, we research three techniques that are evaluated one by one in an experimental set-up to assess how well they succeed in their goals. In the end, the techniques are applied to a practical use case that focuses on forming a bridge between the Web and the use of digital libraries in scientific research. Our first technique focuses on the interactive visualization of search results. Linked data resources can be brought in relation with each other at will. This leads to complex and diverse graphs structures. Our technique facilitates navigation and supports a workflow starting from a broad overview on the data and allows narrowing down until the desired level of detail to then broaden again. To validate the flow, two visualizations where implemented and presented to test-users. The users judged the usability of the visualizations, how the visualizations fit in the workflow and to which degree their features seemed useful for the exploration of linked data.
The ideas behind exploratory search and querying linked data merge when it comes to the way knowledge is represented and indexed by machines - how data is structured and stored for optimal searchability. eries and information should be aligned to facilitate that searches also reveal connections between results. This implies that they take into account the same semantic entities, relevant at that moment. To realize this, we research three techniques that are evaluated one by one in an experimental set-up to assess how well they succeed in their goals. In the end, the techniques are applied to a practical use case that focuses on forming a bridge between the Web and the use of digital libraries in scientific research.
When we speak about finding relationships between resources, it is necessary to dive deeper in the structure. The graph structure of linked data where the semantics give meaning to the relationships between resources enable the execution of pathfinding algorithms. The assigned weights and heuristics are base components of such algorithms and ultimately define (the order) which resources are included in a path. These paths explain indirect connections between resources. Our third technique proposes an algorithm that optimizes the choice of resources in terms of serendipity. Some optimizations guard the consistence of candidate-paths where the coherence of consecutive connections is maximized to avoid trivial and too arbitrary paths. The implementation uses the A* algorithm, the de-facto reference when it comes to heuristically optimized minimal cost paths. The effectiveness of paths was measured based on common automatic metrics and surveys where the users could indicate their preference for paths, generated each time in a different way. Finally, all our techniques are applied to a use case about publications in digital libraries where they are aligned with information about scientific conferences and researchers. The application to this use case is a practical example because the different aspects of exploratory search come together. In fact, the techniques also evolved from the experiences when implementing the use case. Practical details about the semantic model are explained and the implementation of the search system is clarified module by module. The evaluation positions the result, a prototype of a tool to explore scientific publications, researchers and conferences next to some important alternatives.

0.008720686 = product of:
  0.034882743 = sum of:
    0.034882743 = product of:
      0.069765486 = sum of:
        0.069765486 = weight(_text_:project in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069765486 = score(doc=1210,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.32976416 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The current web consists of documents that are highly heterogeneous and hard for machines to understand. The Semantic Web is a progressive movement of the Word Wide Web, aiming at converting the current web of unstructured documents to the web of data. In the Semantic Web, web documents are annotated with metadata using standardized ontology language. These annotated documents are directly processable by machines and it highly improves their usability and usefulness. In Ericsson, similar problems occur. There are massive documents being created with well-defined structures. Though these documents are about domain specific knowledge and can have rich relations, they are currently managed by a traditional search engine, which ignores the rich domain specific information and presents few data to users. Motivated by the Semantic Web, we aim to find standard ways to process these documents, extract rich domain specific information and annotate these data to documents with formal markup languages. We propose this project to develop a domain specific search engine for processing different documents and building explicit relations for them. This research project consists of the three main focuses: examining different domain specific documents and finding ways to extract their metadata; integrating a text search engine with an ontology server; exploring novel ways to build relations for documents. We implement this system and demonstrate its functions. As a prototype, the system provides required features and will be extended in the future.

0.0086163655 = product of:
  0.034465462 = sum of:
    0.034465462 = weight(_text_:digital in 548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034465462 = score(doc=548,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17432621 = fieldWeight in 548, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=548)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Object

Brockhaus Enzyklopädie Digital

0.0086163655 = product of:
  0.034465462 = sum of:
    0.034465462 = weight(_text_:digital in 4089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034465462 = score(doc=4089,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17432621 = fieldWeight in 4089, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4089)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In der vorliegenden Arbeit wurde die Frage »Was ist digitale Mündigkeit?« untersucht. Dabei war das Ziel, die Merkmale und Dimensionen von digitaler Mündigkeit literaturbasiert aufzudecken und die Erkenntnisse in eine erste Definition zu überführen. Dies geschah wie folgt: In der Einleitung wurde zunächst umrissen, wie es zur Wahl des Forschungsthemas kam, inwiefern digitale Mündigkeit die Gesellschaft verändert und welche Bereiche der Lebenswelt mit diesem Begriff angesprochen sind. Daraus erfolgte die Herleitung der Forschungsfrage. Im zweiten Kapitel folgte sodann die Darlegung der theoretisch angelegten Forschungsmethode, die in diesem Fall auf einer zunächst breiten, dann enger gefassten Literaturrecherche basierte. Ergänzend wurde auf die Methode der philosophischen Begriffsanalyse hingewiesen, die für die spätere Definition zum Einsatz kommen sollte. Mit Kapitel 3 wurde sodann in Fachtermini und relevante Begriffe eingeführt, gefolgt von einer Darlegung der Bedeutung von Big Data, Codes und Algorithmen für Individuum und Gesellschaft. Dies geschah anhand exemplarisch aus redaktionellen Beiträgen herausgegriffener Themen. Anschließend wurde der aktuelle Forschungsstand zum Thema präsentiert. Dies erfolgte jedoch vornehmlich aus Gründen eines empirischen Überblicks, nicht, weil aus diesen Studien Daten gewonnen werden sollten (denn die Datengewinnung erfolgte aus der Literatur). Danach wurde digitale Mündigkeit als medienpädagogisches Feld erörtert. In Kapitel 4 wurden relevante Theorien zur Mündigkeit präsentiert. Die Extrakte aus den verschiedenen Ansätzen wurden in einem abschließenden Unterkapitel für die spätere Definition von digitaler Mündigkeit zusammengefasst. Inwiefern digitale Mündigkeit mit den Konzepten der Medienkompetenz und Medienbildung in Verbindung gebracht werden kann, wurde in Kapitel 5 untersucht. Zu diesem Zweck wurden zunächst Entwicklung und Ansätze des Medienkompetenzbegriffs erläutert, gleiches geschah anschließend mit dem Medienbildungsbegriff. Nach einer Darstellung des langjährigen bildungswissenschaftlichen Diskurses um Medienkompetenz und/oder Medienbildung, wurden schließlich die Verhältnisse zwischen digitaler Mündigkeit, Medienkompetenz und Medienbildung betrachtet. Alle Vorarbeiten mündeten hiernach im sechsten Kapitel, in welchem zunächst der Begriff der allgemeinen Mündigkeit analysiert und sodann die Begriffskomponente 'digital' betrachtet wurde. Die in den vorangegangenen Kapiteln geknüpften Fäden liefen schlussendlich in einer fundierten Definition von digitaler Mündigkeit zusammen. Der Hauptteil endete mit einem Blick auf verwandte Begriffe.

0.008488459 = product of:
  0.033953834 = sum of:
    0.033953834 = product of:
      0.06790767 = sum of:
        0.06790767 = weight(_text_:22 in 3406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06790767 = score(doc=3406,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3406, 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=3406)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

30. 5.2010 16:22:35

0.0076571116 = product of:
  0.030628446 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 1392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=1392,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 1392, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1392)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird ein für die Universitätsbibliothek Marburg entwickeltes Konzept zur Verbesserung der Vermittlung von Informationskompetenz vorgestellt. Dabei spielt die Integration von bibliotheksbezogenen Angeboten in Lehrveranstaltungen aber auch die Entwicklung eigenständiger Lehrveranstaltungen im Rahmen des ECTS-Systems eine wichtige Rolle. Diese Veröffentlichung geht zurück auf eine Master-Arbeit im postgradualen Fernstudiengang Master of Arts (Library and Information Science) an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Online-Version: http://www.ib.hu-berlin.de/~kumlau/handreichungen/h139/.

0.0073997467 = product of:
  0.029598987 = sum of:
    0.029598987 = product of:
      0.059197973 = sum of:
        0.059197973 = weight(_text_:project in 3288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059197973 = score(doc=3288,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 3288, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3288)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This dissertation investigates the social and technological factors of collaboratively organizing information in commons-based peer production systems. To do so, it analyzes the diverse strategies that members of Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) project communities use to organize information. Key findings from this dissertation show that conceptual structures of information organization are encoded into the infrastructure of WMF projects. The fact that WMF projects are commons-based peer production systems means that we can inspect the code that enables these systems, but a specific type of technical literacy is required to do so. I use three methods in this dissertation. I conduct a qualitative content analysis of the discussions surrounding the design, implementation and evaluation of the category system; a quantitative analysis using descriptive statistics of patterns of editing among editors who contributed to the code of templates for information boxes; and a close reading of the infrastructure used to create the category system, the infobox templates, and the knowledge base of structured data.

0.007202696 = product of:
  0.028810784 = sum of:
    0.028810784 = product of:
      0.05762157 = sum of:
        0.05762157 = weight(_text_:22 in 4441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05762157 = score(doc=4441,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 4441, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4441)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 2.2000 10:25:05

Series

Kölner Arbeitspapiere zur Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft; Bd.22

0.006976548 = product of:
  0.027906192 = sum of:
    0.027906192 = product of:
      0.055812385 = sum of:
        0.055812385 = weight(_text_:project in 4569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055812385 = score(doc=4569,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.26381132 = fieldWeight in 4569, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4569)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The results of this thesis are intended to support the information architect in designing a solution for improved search in a corporate environment. Specifically we have examined the type of search problems that require a domain model to enhance the search process. There are several approaches to modeling a domain. We have considered 3 different types of domain modeling schemes; taxonomy, thesaurus and ontology. The intention is to support the information architect in making an informed choice between one or more of these schemes. In our opinion the main criteria for this choice are the modeling characteristics of a scheme and the suitability for application in the search process. The second chapter is a discussion of modeling characteristics of each scheme, followed by a comparison between them. This should give an information architect an idea of which aspects of a domain can be modeled with each scheme. What is missing here is an indication of the effort required to model a domain with each scheme. There are too many factors that influence the amount of required effort, ranging from measurable factors like domain size and resource characteristics to cultural matters such as the willingness to share knowledge and the existence of a project champion in the team to keep the project running. The third chapter shows what role domain models can play in each part of the search process. This gives an idea of the problems that domain models can solve. We have split the search process into individual parts to show that domain models can be applied very differently in the process. The fourth chapter makes recommendations about the suitability of each individualdomain modeling scheme for improving search. Each scheme has particular characteristics that make it especially suitable for a domain or a search problem. In the appendix each case study is described in detail. These descriptions are intended to serve as a benchmark. The current problem of the enterprise can be compared to those described to see which case study is most similar, which solution was chosen, which problems arose and how they were dealt with. An important issue that we have not touched upon in this thesis is that of maintenance. The real problems of a domain model are revealed when it is applied in a search system and its deficits and wrong assumptions become clear. Adaptation and maintenance are always required. Unfortunately we have not been able to glean sufficient information about maintenance issues from our case studies to draw any meaningful conclusions.

0.0067907665 = product of:
  0.027163066 = sum of:
    0.027163066 = product of:
      0.054326132 = sum of:
        0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 1491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054326132 = score(doc=1491,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1491, 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=1491)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 7.1998 18:00:49

0.0067907665 = product of:
  0.027163066 = sum of:
    0.027163066 = product of:
      0.054326132 = sum of:
        0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 1492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054326132 = score(doc=1492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1492, 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=1492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 7.1998 18:05:52

0.0067907665 = product of:
  0.027163066 = sum of:
    0.027163066 = product of:
      0.054326132 = sum of:
        0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 1409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054326132 = score(doc=1409,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1409, 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=1409)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Nach der Veröffentlichung einer deutschen Übersetzung der Dewey Decimal Classification 22 im Oktober 2005 und ihrer Nutzung zur Inhaltserschließung in der Deutschen Nationalbibliographie seit Januar 2006 stellt sich aus Sicht der deutschen kunsthistorischen Spezialbibliotheken die Frage nach einer möglichen Verwendung der DDC und ihrer generellen Eignung zur Inhalterschließung kunsthistorischer Publikationen. Diese Frage wird vor dem Hintergrund der bestehenden bibliothekarischen Strukturen für die Kunstgeschichte sowie mit Blick auf die inhaltlichen Besonderheiten, die Forschungsmethodik und die publizistischen Traditionen dieses Faches erörtert.