Search (533 results, page 27 of 27)

0.0052976324 = product of:
  0.010595265 = sum of:
    0.010595265 = product of:
      0.02119053 = sum of:
        0.02119053 = weight(_text_:22 in 5) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02119053 = score(doc=5,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 5, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2003 9:55:44

0.005111843 = product of:
  0.010223686 = sum of:
    0.010223686 = product of:
      0.020447372 = sum of:
        0.020447372 = weight(_text_:classification in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020447372 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.12315229 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper we report on the development and use of CoFIND (Collaborative Filter In N Dimensions), a web-based collaborative bookmark engine, designed as part of a self-organising learning environment to generate a list of useful and relevant learning resources. Users of CoFfND can add pointers to resources and rate them according to two types of category, 'topics' and 'qualities'. Along with the links and descriptions of the resources themselves, both topics and qualities are also entered by users, thus generating a resource-base and collective categorisation scheme based on the needs and wishes of its participants. A topic is analogous to a traditional category whereby any object can be considered to be in the set or out of it. Examples of topics might include 'animals', 'computing', 'travel' and so on. Qualities, on the other hand are the things that users value in a resource, and most of them are (in English at any rate) adjectives or adjectival descriptive phrases. It is always possible to say of a quality that a given resource is more or less so. Examples of qualities might include 'good for beginners', 'amusing', 'colourful', 'turgid' and so on. It is the qualities that provide the nth dimension of CoFIND, allowing much subtler ratings than typical collaborative filtering systems, which tend to rate resources according to a simple good/bad or useful/useless scale. CoFIND thus dynamically accommodates changing needs in learners, essential because the essence of learning is change. In use, the user enters a number of qualities and/or topics that interest them. Resources are returned in a list ordered according to the closeness of match to the required topics and qualities, weighted by the number of users who have categorised or rated a particular resource. The more a topic or quality is used to categorise different resources, the more prominent its position in the list of selectable topics or categories. Not only do less popular qualities sink to the bottom of this list, they can also fall off it altogether, in a process analogous to a Darwinian concept of evolution, where species of quality or topic fight each other for votes and space on the list and topics and qualities are honed so that only the most useful survive. The system is designed to teeter on the 'edge of chaos', thus allowing clear species to develop without falling into chaotic disorder or stagnant order. The paper reports on some ongoing experiments using the CoFIND system to support a number of learning environments within the University of Brighton. In particular, we report on a cut-down form used to help teach a course on Human-Computer Interaction, whereby students not only rate screen designs but collaboratively create the qualities used to rate those resources. Mention is made of plans to use the system to establish metadata schema for courseware component design, a picture database and to help facilitate small group research. The paper concludes by analysing early results, indicating that the approach provides a promising way to automatically elicit consensus on issues of categorisation and rating, allowing evolution instead of the 'experts' to decide classification criteria. However, several problems need to be overcome, including difficulties encouraging use of the system (especially when the resource base is not highly populated) and problems tuning the rate of evolution in order to maintain a balance between stability and disorder

0.005111843 = product of:
  0.010223686 = sum of:
    0.010223686 = product of:
      0.020447372 = sum of:
        0.020447372 = weight(_text_:classification in 2862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020447372 = score(doc=2862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.12315229 = fieldWeight in 2862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2862)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Publishers Weekly. May 2007: "In a high-minded twist on the Internet-has-changed-everything book, Weinberger (Small Pieces Loosely Joined) joins the ranks of social thinkers striving to construct new theories around the success of Google and Wikipedia. Organization or, rather, lack of it, is the key: the author insists that "we have to get rid of the idea that there's a best way of organizing the world." Building on his earlier works' discussions of the Internet-driven shift in power to users and consumers, Weinberger notes that "our homespun ways of maintaining order are going to break-they're already breaking-in the digital world." Today's avalanche of fresh information, Weinberger writes, requires relinquishing control of how we organize pretty much everything; he envisions an ever-changing array of "useful, powerful and beautiful ways to make sense of our world." Perhaps carried away by his thesis, the author gets into extended riffs on topics like the history of classification and the Dewey Decimal System. At the point where readers may want to turn his musings into strategies for living or doing business, he serves up intriguing but not exactly helpful epigrams about "the third order of order" and "useful miscellaneousness." But the book's call to embrace complexity will influence thinking about "the newly miscellanized world.""

0.004994656 = product of:
  0.009989312 = sum of:
    0.009989312 = product of:
      0.019978624 = sum of:
        0.019978624 = weight(_text_:22 in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019978624 = score(doc=91,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.109432176 = fieldWeight in 91, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=91)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Classification

303.48/33 22 (LoC)

DDC

303.48/33 22 (LoC)

0.004414694 = product of:
  0.008829388 = sum of:
    0.008829388 = product of:
      0.017658776 = sum of:
        0.017658776 = weight(_text_:22 in 1219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017658776 = score(doc=1219,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 1219, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1219)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ähnlich spektakulär und informativ präsentieren sich auch die Astronomen: Ihr schier unerschöpflicher Fundus von Bildern und Filmen macht das "elektronische Universum" auf http://zebu.uoregon.edu ebenso einen Klick wert wie die Geschichte von "Geburt und Tod der Sterne" auf demselben Server (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/astl22). Schnell gerät der Wissensdurstige auf reizvolle Seitenpfade, denn viele Vorlesungen glänzen mit sorgfältig zusammengestellten Linklisten. Die führen zum Beispiel zu den "Chemischen Briefen" Justus von Liebigs, wie sie im 19. Jahrhundert zunächst als Wissenschaftskolumne in der Augsburger Allgemeinen Zeitung erschienen (www.liebig-museum.de/chbriefe/homepage.htm). Selbst die Alchemie - neunzig ansprechend präsentierte Megabyte auf www.alchemywebsite. com - verleitet zum Verweilen. Historisches ist, weil nicht stets aktualisierungsbedürftig, ohnehin beliebt im Netz. So wartet etwa die Universität Groningen (Niederlande) mit einem voluminösen Hypertext auf, praktisch ein komplettes Lehrbuch der amerikanischen Geschichte mit Texten, Essays und Präsidentenbiografien (http://odur.let.rug.nl/usanew). Noch weiter zurück in die Vergangenheit reicht eine Anthropologen-Website über den Ursprung des Menschen (www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5579/TA.html). Verspieltere Naturen werden dort zuerst fossile Schädel zuzuordnen versuchen ("Name That Skull") oder einem Anthropologiestudenten beim Wurf des Atlatl zusehen. Dieser frühe Wurfspeer machte schon den Mammuts zu schaffen und drang noch vor wenigen hundert Jahren durch die eiserne Rüstung spanischer Konquistadoren. Selbst Angewandtes bietet die World Lecture Hall. Etwa die "Geschichte der ökonomischen Denkweise" einschließlich eines 22-Minuten-"Interviews" mit Karl Marx auf www.boisestate.edu/econ/lreynol/web/het.htm. Oder Online-Sprachkurse: Wollof und Xhosa, Suaheli und Sanskrit lehrt http://www.word2word.vorn/courscad.html. Surfen allein fördert die akademische Karriere allerdings nicht unbedingt. Wer of fizielle Online-Zertifikate in Deutschland anstrebt, findet in dem Beitrag "Virtuelle Universität im Selbstversuch" (Spektrum der Wissenschaft 11/ 2001, S. 109) gute Startpunkte für das Studieren im Netz, angefangen bei - na wo wohl? - www.studieren-irre-netz.de."

0.004414694 = product of:
  0.008829388 = sum of:
    0.008829388 = product of:
      0.017658776 = sum of:
        0.017658776 = weight(_text_:22 in 3224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017658776 = score(doc=3224,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 3224, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3224)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Bundesweite Förderprogramme und Landesinitiativen zur Verbreitung des computergestützten Lernens in der Aus- und Weiterbildung gaben den Ausschlag für eine Untersuchung des Einsatzes von E-Learning an deutschen Hochschulen. Durchgeführt wurde sie vom Institut für Medien- und Kompetenzforschung und dem Multimedia Kontor Hamburg. Gegründet wurde das Kontor von den staatlichen Hochschulen in Hamburg, die sich in einem gemeinsamen E-Learning-Consortium . zusammengeschlossen hallen. Das Kernergebnis der Studie, an der sich vor allem Hochschulen beteiligt haben, die diese neue Lernform tatsächlich einsetzen, lautet: E-LearnIng ist Bestandteil, aber nicht Alltag in der Hochschule. Danach setzt die Mehrheit von 86 der 95 befragten Hochschulen Computer in Lehrveranstal- tungen ein. Vor allem an großen und staatlichen Einrichtungen werden computergestützte Lernformen angeboten. Bei den Lernangeboten handelt es sich an 63 Hochschulen um Präsenzveranstaltungen mit Online-Unterstützung. Blended-Learning-Arrangements, also allgemein netzgestützte Angebote, und reine Online-Studiengänge werden nur an 40 beziehungsweise 22 Lehrstätten angeboten. Durchschnittlich setzen neun von zehn befragten Hochschulen aktuell E-Learning in ihren Lehrveranstaltungen ein. Ziel der Untersuchung war es auch, zu ermitteln, wie E-Learning-Angebote innerhalb verschiedener Studiengänge genutzt werden. Die Verfasser kommen zu dem Schluss, dass die Differenzierung der E-Learning-Angebote nach Fächergruppen deutliche Schwerpunkte erkennen lässt. So sind Disziplinen mit ausgeprägter Computeraffinität wie Informatik und Ingenieurwissenschaften neben Fächern mit hohen Studierendenzahlen wie etwa Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften klare Vorreiter in der neuen computergestützten Hochschullehre. Im Mittelfeld finden sich dagegen kreativ-gestalterische Studiengänge wie Kunst, Design und Mediengestaltung sowie Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften, aber auch Natur- und Umweltwissenschaften. Für diese lässt sich vermuten, dass aufgrund ihres hohen Praxisanteils der Computer hier nur bedingt zum Einsatz kommen kann. Dass Rechtswissenschaften und Technikstudiengänge auf den hinteren Plätzen rangieren, kann kaum überraschen. Denn hier wird der Computer nur selten als LehrLern-Medium eingesetzt. Anders sieht es aus in den medizinisch-pharmazeutischen Disziplinen. Denn in der Medizinerausbildung und -praxis kommen Computer häufig zum Einsatz. Die niedrigen Einsatzzahlen müssen daher erstaunen. Neben der Ermittlung des Umfangs und der Verteilung auf unterschiedliche Studiengänge analysierten die Autoren die Akzeptanzwerte von E-Learning-Angeboten. Befragt wurden, Hochschulvertreter. Die waren selbst weniger im Hochschulbetrieb eingebunden, sondern bekleideten Leitungspositionen. Rund die Hälfte von ihnen denkt, dass Lehrende gegenüber dem Einsatz von E-Learning-Angeboten positiv eingestellt sind. Jeder Neunte glaubt hingegen an eine Befürwortung klassischer Präsenzveranstaltungen. Eine höhere Akzeptanz vermuten die Befragten dabei bei den Lehrenden von Fachhochschulen. Auch den Studierenden insgesamt werden höhere Akzeptanzwerte bescheinigt. Die Befragten schätzen dabei aber, dass nur bis zu fünf Prozent aller Studierenden gegenwärtig mit E-Learning arbeiten. Die Befragten geben ferner Auskunft darüber, wie sie die Lernergebnisse unter Einsatz neuer Techniken einschätzen. Nur ein Viertel schätzt dabei die Qualität von Prüfungsergebnissen beim E-Learning im Vergleich zu Präsenzveranstaltungen als besser ein. Jeder Zweite kann keinen Qualitätsunterschied ausmachen. Allerdings geht die Hälfte der befragten Hochschulmitarbeiter davon aus, dass die Nutzer den neuen Technologie bis 2007 bessere Eregbnisse in Tests erzielen werden. Entsprechend prognostizieren die Befragten einen Anstieg der studentischen E-Learning-Nutzer innerhalb der nächsten Jahre: Drei von vier Hochschulvertretern kommen zu dem Schluss, dass künftig mehr Studierende mit Hilfe des Computers lernen werden."

0.004414694 = product of:
  0.008829388 = sum of:
    0.008829388 = product of:
      0.017658776 = sum of:
        0.017658776 = weight(_text_:22 in 3992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017658776 = score(doc=3992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 3992, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2004 14:46:50

0.004414694 = product of:
  0.008829388 = sum of:
    0.008829388 = product of:
      0.017658776 = sum of:
        0.017658776 = weight(_text_:22 in 4700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017658776 = score(doc=4700,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 4700, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4700)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Kornfelder. Nichts als Kornfelder, so weit das Auge reichte. Das sah Tim Berners-Lee aus dem Autofenster, als er auf dem Weg zum National Center of Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) in Urbana-Champaign zum ersten Mal in seinem Leben durch Illinois fuhr. Ein Elite-Informatik-Institut ist so ziemlich das Letzte, was man indem landwirtschaftlich geprägten amerikanischen Bundesstaat im mittleren Westen erwarten würde. Doch das NCSA spielt in der kurzen Geschichte des Internets eine entscheidende Rolle. An dem kaum bekannten Forschungsinstitut wurde vor zehn Jahren ein Computerprogramm entwickelt, dessen Bedeutung Technikhistoriker schon jetzt mit der der Dampfmaschine; oder des Telefons vergleichen: Am 22. April 1993 veröffentlichten Studenten und Mitarbeiter im Internet den Webbrowser "Mosaic" - eine Software, mit der man durch das Netz surfen kann. Auch wenn das Programm einer Öffentlichkeit jenseits von Informatikern und Netzfreaks unbekannt sein dürfte, ist seine Bedeutung gar nicht zu überschätzen: Vor "Mosaic" gab es auf der ganzen Welt einige hundert Websites, Ende 1993 waren es bereits einige tausend, und in den nächsten Jahren sollte sich ihre Zahl manchmal im Wochenrhythmus verdoppeln. Der Siegeszug des Internets begann mit "Mosaic". Das Programm hat das Internet zu einem Massenmedium gemacht. Ohne "Mosaic" gäbe es heute keine Online-Publizistik und keinen E-Commerce, kein Amazon und kein E-Bay. Nach einem halben Jahr hatten eine Million Internet-Surfer das Programm heruntergeladen. Heute finden sich Nachfolgerprogramme wie der "Netscape Navigator" oder der "Internet Explorer" auf so gut wie jedem Computer mit Internet-Anschluss. Schöpfer der historischen Software waren der Student Marc Andreessen und der wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter Eric Bina: In einem Keller des NCSA hatte sie mit einigen Kommilitonen in nächtelangen Programmier-Sessions die erste Version von "Mosaic" geschrieben. Diese Leute wollte Tim Berners-Lee im März 1993 treffen, denn er war selbst der Schöpfer des World Wide Web (WWW): 1990 hatte der britische Physiker am Kernforschungszentrum Cern in Genf einige technische Regeln definiert, die es leichter machen sollten, im Internet, einem damals noch weitgehend unbekannten akademischen Computernetzwerk, Informationen zu veröffentlichen und zu lokalisieren. Das Web erfreute sich unter Wissenschaftlern schnell einer gewissen Beliebtheit, aber die Programme, mit denen man sich im WWW bewegte, waren für Laien zu schwierig und konnten nur Text anzeigen. "Mosaic" dagegen wurde per Mouse-Klick bedient und zeigte Bilder und Grafiken. Darauf hatte Berners-Lee schon seit einiger Zeit gewartet. Denn der Wissenschaftler mit dem bescheidenen, ja fast schüchternen Auftreten hatte eine große Vision: Er wollte aus dem Internet "ein einzigartiges, universelles und leicht zu bedienendes Hypertext-Medium machen, mit dem man jede Art von Information teilen kann, wie er später in Vorträgen und Interviews immer wieder betonte. Darum hatte er in der Anfang der 90er Jahre noch kleinen und unüberschaubaren InternetSzene geduldig und mit viel Diplomatie darauf hingearbeitet, dass sein Internet-Code namens Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) als Quasi-Standard für Daten im Web akzeptiert wurde. Nachdem ihm das gelungen war, musste nun ein Programm her, das die Daten lesen konnte. Berners-Lee unterstützte die Programmierer der ersten viel versprechenden Browser -"Cello", "Arena" oder "Lynx" - per E-Mail. Die Gruppe aus dem NSCA dagegen hatte es Anfang 1993 ganz unabhängig von ihm geschafft: ein Programm für das Internet, das nicht nur Informatiker bedienen konnten! Wie ein Besessener schrieb Andreessen, der sich zeitweise von Milch und Keksen ernährte, mit seinen Kommilitonen an immer neuen und verbesserten Versionen von "Mosaic".

0.004414694 = product of:
  0.008829388 = sum of:
    0.008829388 = product of:
      0.017658776 = sum of:
        0.017658776 = weight(_text_:22 in 2058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017658776 = score(doc=2058,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2058, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2058)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 7.1996 9:33:22

0.0035317552 = product of:
  0.0070635104 = sum of:
    0.0070635104 = product of:
      0.014127021 = sum of:
        0.014127021 = weight(_text_:22 in 3125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014127021 = score(doc=3125,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 3125, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3125)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2005 19:05:37

0.0029210532 = product of:
  0.0058421064 = sum of:
    0.0058421064 = product of:
      0.011684213 = sum of:
        0.011684213 = weight(_text_:classification in 2073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011684213 = score(doc=2073,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.07037274 = fieldWeight in 2073, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2073)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Relational database Management systems have been one of the great success stories of recent times and sensitive to the market, Most major vendors have responded by extending their products to handle XML data while still exploiting the range of facilities that a modern RDBMS affords. No book of this type would be complete without consideration of the "big these" (Oracle 9i, DB2, and SQL Server 2000 which each get a dedicated chapter) and though occasionally overtly piece-meal and descriptive the authors all note the shortcomings as well as the strengths of the respective systems. This part of the book is somewhat dichotomous, these chapters being followed by two that propose detailed solutions to somewhat theoretical problems, a generic architecture for storing XML in a RDBMS and using an object-relational approach to building an XML repository. The biography of the author of the latter (Paul Brown) contains the curious but strangely reassuring admission that "he remains puzzled by XML." The first five components are in-depth case studies of XMLdatabase applications. Necessarily diverse, few will be interested in all the topics presented but I was particularly interested in the first case study an bioinformatics. One of the twentieth century's greatest scientific undertakings was the Human Genome Project, the quest to list the information encoded by the sequence of DNA that makes up our genes and which has been referred to as "a paradigm for information Management in the life sciences" (Pearson & Soll, 1991). After a brief introduction to molecular biology to give the background to the information management problems, the authors turn to the use of XML in bioinformatics. Some of the data are hierarchical (e.g., the Linnaean classification of a human as a primate, primates as mammals, mammals are all vertebrates, etc.) but others are far more difficult to model. The Human Genome Project is virtually complete as far as the data acquisition phase is concerned and the immense volume of genome sequence data is no longer a very significant information Management issue per se. However bioinformaticians now need to interpret this information. Some data are relatively straightforward, e.g., the positioning of genes and sequence elements (e.g., promoters) within the sequences, but there is often little or no knowledge available an the direct and indirect interactions between them. There are vast numbers of such interrelationships; many complex data types and novel ones are constantly emerging, necessitating an extensible approach and the ability to manage semi-structured data. In the past, object databases such as AceDB (Durbin & Mieg, 1991) have gone some way to Meeting these aims but it is the combination of XML and databases that more completely addresses knowledge Management requirements of bioinformatics. XML is being enthusiastically adopted with a plethora of XML markup standards being developed, as authors Direen and Jones note "The unprecedented degree and flexibility of XML in terms of its ability to capture information is what makes it ideal for knowledge Management and for use in bioinformatics."

0.0029210532 = product of:
  0.0058421064 = sum of:
    0.0058421064 = product of:
      0.011684213 = sum of:
        0.011684213 = weight(_text_:classification in 340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011684213 = score(doc=340,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.07037274 = fieldWeight in 340, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=340)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.7, S.1066-1067 (X. Zhu u. J. Liao): "The user, without whom any product or service would be nothing, plays a very important role during the whole life cycle of products or services. The user's involvement should be from the very beginning, not just after products or services are ready to work. According to ISO 9241-11: 1998, Part 11, Usability refers to "the extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of user." As an academic topic of human-computer interaction, Web usability has been studied widely for a long time. This classroom-oriented book, bridging academia and the educational community, talks about Web usability in a student-friendly fashion. It outlines not only the methodology of user-centered Web site design but also details the methods to implement at every stage of the methodology. That is, the book presents the user-centered Web-design approach from both macrocosm and microcosm points of view, which makes it both recapitulative and practical. The most important key word in Web Usability is "user-centered," which means Web developers should not substitute their own personal preferences for the users' needs. The book classifies Web sites into five types: E-commerce, informational, entertainment, community, and intranet. Since the methods used during Web development differ somewhat depending on the type of Web site, it is necessary to have a classification in advance. With Figure 1.3 on p. 17, the book explains the whole user-centered Webdevelopment life cycle (called "methodology" in this book review), which provides a clear path for Web development that is easy to understand, remember, and perform. Since all the following chapters are based on the methodology, a clear presentation of it is paramount. The table on p. 93 summarizes concisely all types of methods for requirements gathering and their advantages and disadvantages. According to this table, appropriate methods can be easily chosen for different Web site development projects. As the author remarked, "requirements gathering is central to the concept of user-centered design," (p. 98) and "one of the hallmarks of user-centered design is usability testing" (p. 205). Stage 2 (collect user requirements) and Stage 5 (perform usability testing) of the user-centered Web-development life cycle are the two stages with the most user involvement: however, this does not mean that all other stages are user unrelated. For example, in Stage 4 (create and modify physical design), frame is not suggested to be used just because most users are unfamiliar with the concept of frame (p. 201). Note that frequently there are several rounds of usability testing to be performed in the four case studies, and some of them are performed before the physical-design stage or even the conceptual-design stage, which embodies the idea of an iterative design process.

0.0026488162 = product of:
  0.0052976324 = sum of:
    0.0052976324 = product of:
      0.010595265 = sum of:
        0.010595265 = weight(_text_:22 in 4344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010595265 = score(doc=4344,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.058035173 = fieldWeight in 4344, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01171875 = fieldNorm(doc=4344)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Chapter 2 (Technology and People) focuses an several theories of technological acceptance and diffusion. Unfortunately, Bruce's presentation is somewhat confusing as he moves from one theory to next, never quite connecting them into a logical sequence or coherent whole. Two theories are of particular interest to Bruce: the Theory of Diffusion of Innovations and the Theory of Planned Behavior. The Theory of Diffusion of Innovations is an "information-centric view of technology acceptance" in which technology adopters are placed in the information flows of society from which they learn about innovations and "drive innovation adoption decisions" (p. 20). The Theory of Planned Behavior maintains that the "performance of a behavior is a joint function of intentions and perceived behavioral control" (i.e., how muck control a person thinks they have) (pp. 22-23). Bruce combines these two theories to form the basis for the Technology Acceptance Model. This model posits that "an individual's acceptance of information technology is based an beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors" (p. 24). In all these theories and models echoes a recurring theme: "individual perceptions of the innovation or technology are critical" in terms of both its characteristics and its use (pp. 24-25). From these, in turn, Bruce derives a predictive theory of the role personal perceptions play in technology adoption: Personal Innovativeness of Information Technology Adoption (PIITA). Personal inventiveness is defined as "the willingness of an individual to try out any new information technology" (p. 26). In general, the PIITA theory predicts that information technology will be adopted by individuals that have a greater exposure to mass media, rely less an the evaluation of information technology by others, exhibit a greater ability to cope with uncertainty and take risks, and requires a less positive perception of an information technology prior to its adoption. Chapter 3 (A Focus an Usings) introduces the User-Centered Paradigm (UCP). The UCP is characteristic of the shift of emphasis from technology to users as the driving force behind technology and research agendas for Internet development [for a dissenting view, see Andrew Dillion's (2003) challenge to the utility of user-centerness for design guidance]. It entails the "broad acceptance of the user-oriented perspective across a range of disciplines and professional fields," such as business, education, cognitive engineering, and information science (p. 34).