Search (67 results, page 1 of 4)

0.08289318 = product of:
  0.12433976 = sum of:
    0.0963466 = weight(_text_:interest in 2634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0963466 = score(doc=2634,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.38424414 = fieldWeight in 2634, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2634)
    0.027993156 = product of:
      0.05598631 = sum of:
        0.05598631 = weight(_text_:classification in 2634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05598631 = score(doc=2634,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 2634, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2634)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A preliminary, purposive survey of definitions and current applications of facet analytical theory (FA) is used to develop a framework for the analysis of Websites. This set of guidelines may well serve to highlight commonalities and differences among FA applications an the Web. Rather than identifying FA as the terrain of a particular interest group, the goal is to explore current practices, uncover common misconceptions, extend understanding, and highlight developments that augment the traditional practice of FA and faceted classification (FC).

0.049973316 = product of:
  0.14991994 = sum of:
    0.14991994 = sum of:
      0.06786566 = weight(_text_:classification in 6040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06786566 = score(doc=6040,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 6040, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6040)
      0.08205428 = weight(_text_:22 in 6040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08205428 = score(doc=6040,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6040, 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=6040)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:42:47

0.033315543 = product of:
  0.099946626 = sum of:
    0.099946626 = sum of:
      0.045243774 = weight(_text_:classification in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045243774 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 4869, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4869)
      0.054702852 = weight(_text_:22 in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054702852 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4869, 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=4869)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article gives an overview of the design and organisation of DutchESS, a Dutch information subject gateway created as a national collaborative effort of the National Library and a number of academic libraries. The combined centralised and distributed model of DutchESS is discussed, as well as its selection policy, its metadata format, classification scheme and retrieval options. Also some options for future collaboration on an international level are explored

Date

22. 6.2002 19:39:23

0.032115534 = product of:
  0.0963466 = sum of:
    0.0963466 = weight(_text_:interest in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0963466 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.38424414 = fieldWeight in 997, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=997)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

There has been a recent explosion of interest in digital music libraries. In particular, interactive melody retrieval is a striking example of a search paradigm that differs radically from the standard full-text search. Many different techniques have been proposed for melody matching, but the area lacks standard databases that allow them to be compared on common grounds--and copyright issues have stymied attempts to develop such a corpus. This paper focuses on methods for evaluating different symbolic music matching strategies, and describes a series of experiments that compare and contrast results obtained using three dominant paradigms. Combining two of these paradigms yields a hybrid approach which is shown to have the best overall combination of efficiency and effectiveness.

0.0291511 = product of:
  0.0874533 = sum of:
    0.0874533 = sum of:
      0.039588302 = weight(_text_:classification in 631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039588302 = score(doc=631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 631, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=631)
      0.047864996 = weight(_text_:22 in 631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047864996 = score(doc=631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 631, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=631)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

'Quality-controlled subject gateways' are Internet services which apply a rich set of quality measures to support systematic resource discovery. Considerable manual effort is used to secure a selection of resources which meet quality criteria and to display a rich description of these resources with standards-based metadata. Regular checking and updating ensure good collection management. A main goal is to provide a high quality of subject access through indexing resources using controlled vocabularies and by offering a deep classification structure for advanced searching and browsing. This article provides an initial empirical overview of existing services of this kind, their approaches and technologies, based on proposed working definitions and typologies of subject gateways

Date

22. 6.2002 19:37:55

0.027527599 = product of:
  0.082582794 = sum of:
    0.082582794 = weight(_text_:interest in 2021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.082582794 = score(doc=2021,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.3293521 = fieldWeight in 2021, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2021)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The strongest tradition of IR systems evaluation has focused on system effectiveness; more recently, there has been a growing interest in evaluation of Interactive IR systems, balancing system and user-oriented evaluation criteria. In this paper we shift the focus to considering how IR systems, and particularly digital libraries, can be evaluated to assess (and improve) their fit with users' broader work activities. Taking this focus, we answer a different set of evaluation questions that reveal more about the design of interfaces, user-system interactions and how systems may be deployed in the information working context. The planning and conduct of such evaluation studies share some features with the established methods for conducting IR evaluation studies, but come with a shift in emphasis; for example, a greater range of ethical considerations may be pertinent. We present the PRET A Rapporter framework for structuring user-centred evaluation studies and illustrate its application to three evaluation studies of digital library systems.

0.025953269 = product of:
  0.077859804 = sum of:
    0.077859804 = weight(_text_:interest in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077859804 = score(doc=2799,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.31051615 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Grounded on a strong belief that ontologies enhance the performance of information retrieval systems, there has been an upsurge of interest in ontologies. Its importance is identified in diverse research fields such as knowledge engineering, knowledge representation, qualitative modeling, language engineering, database design, information integration, object-oriented analysis, information retrieval and extraction, knowledge management and agent-based systems design (Guarino, 1998). While the role-played by ontologies, automatically lends a place of legitimacy for these tools, research in this area gains greater significance in the wake of various challenges faced in the contemporary digital environment. With the objective of overcoming various pitfalls associated with current search mechanisms, ontologies are increasingly used for developing efficient information retrieval systems. An indicator of research interest in the area of ontology is the Swoogle, a search engine for Semantic Web documents, terms and data found on the Web (Ding, Li et al, 2004). Given the complex nature of the digital content archived in digital libraries, ontologies can be employed for designing efficient forms of information retrieval in digital libraries. Knowledge representation assumes greater significance due to its crucial role in ontology development. These systems aid in developing intelligent information systems, wherein the notion of intelligence implies the ability of the system to find implicit consequences of its explicitly represented knowledge (Baader and Nutt, 2003). Knowledge representation formalisms such as 'Description Logics' are used to obtain explicit knowledge representation of the subject domain. These representations are developed into ontologies, which are used for developing intelligent information systems. Against this backdrop, the paper examines the use of Description Logics for conceptually modeling a chosen domain, which would be utilized for developing domain ontologies. The knowledge representation languages identified for this purpose are Web Ontology Language (OWL) and KArlsruhe ONtology (KAON) language. Drawing upon the various technical constructs in developing ontology-based information systems, the paper explains the working of the prototypes and also presents a comparative study of the two prototypes.

0.024986658 = product of:
  0.07495997 = sum of:
    0.07495997 = sum of:
      0.03393283 = weight(_text_:classification in 2199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03393283 = score(doc=2199,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2199, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2199)
      0.04102714 = weight(_text_:22 in 2199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04102714 = score(doc=2199,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2199, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2199)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 2.2009 19:11:35

Source

New pespectives on subject indexing and classification: essays in honour of Magda Heiner-Freiling. Red.: K. Knull-Schlomann, u.a

0.022939665 = product of:
  0.068818994 = sum of:
    0.068818994 = weight(_text_:interest in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068818994 = score(doc=2596,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.27446008 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - To describe how information visualization can be used in the design of interface tools for large-scale repositories. Design/methodology/approach - One challenge for designers in the context of large-scale repositories is to create interface tools that help users find specific information of interest. In order to be most effective, these tools need to leverage the cognitive characteristics of the target users. At the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the authors' target users are scientists and engineers who can be characterized as higher-order, analytical thinkers. In this paper, the authors describe a visualization tool they have created for making the authors' large-scale digital object repositories more usable for them: SearchGraph, which facilitates data set analysis by displaying search results in the form of a two- or three-dimensional interactive scatter plot. Findings - Using SearchGraph, users can view a condensed, abstract visualization of search results. They can view the same dataset from multiple perspectives by manipulating several display, sort, and filter options. Doing so allows them to see different patterns in the dataset. For example, they can apply a logarithmic transformation in order to create more scatter in a dense cluster of data points or they can apply filters in order to focus on a specific subset of data points. Originality/value - SearchGraph is a creative solution to the problem of how to design interface tools for large-scale repositories. It is particularly appropriate for the authors' target users, who are scientists and engineers. It extends the work of the first two authors on ActiveGraph, a read-write digital library visualization tool.

0.022939665 = product of:
  0.068818994 = sum of:
    0.068818994 = weight(_text_:interest in 2395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068818994 = score(doc=2395,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.27446008 = fieldWeight in 2395, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2395)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Europeana is an international trusted digital initiative providing access, from a single entry point, to prized collections from a number of European cultural institutions. Advanced Internet and digital technologies present new ways to connect with users; and there is a need continued evaluation of digital libraries. This paper reports on a task oriented, usability study exploring a number of aspects including user satisfaction specific to the Europeana Digital Library. Participants were students from Library Science and Information Systems department, who had some basic experience searching digital collections for information. Participants performed 13 tasks, and focused on the Hellenistic collection. Methodologically, the test was consisted of a list of tasks that among others aimed to assess user satisfaction and interest while performing them. The method applied was measuring Effectiveness, Efficiency, Learnability and Satisfaction. Despite the fact that it was not the first time that they came in contact with a digital library, several participants had difficulties while performing selected tasks, especially when they involved a variety of search types. In general, all of the participants seemed to comprehend how Europeana is organized, although the results also indicate that participants had feelings that expectations were not met when performing more complex tasks.

0.019464953 = product of:
  0.058394857 = sum of:
    0.058394857 = weight(_text_:interest in 1159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058394857 = score(doc=1159,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.23288712 = fieldWeight in 1159, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1159)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The author holds a chair in Humanities Computer Science at the University of Cologne. For a number of years, he has been responsible for digitization projects, either as project director or as the person responsible for the technology being employed on the projects. The "Duderstadt project" (http://www.archive.geschichte.mpg.de/duderstadt/dud-e.htm) is one such project. It is one of the early large-scale manuscript servers, finished at the end of 1998, with approximately 80,000 high resolution documents representing the holdings of a city archive before the year 1600. The digital library of the Max-Planck-Institut für Europäische Rechtsgeschichte in Frankfurt (http://www.mpier.uni-frankfurt.de/dlib) is another project on which the author has worked, with currently approximately 900,000 pages. The author is currently project director of the project "Codices Electronici Ecclesiae Colonensis" (CEEC), which has just started and will ultimately consist of approximately 130,000 very high resolution color pages representing the complete holdings of the manuscript library of a medieval cathedral. It is being designed in close cooperation with the user community of such material. The project site (http://www.ceec.uni-koeln.de), while not yet officially opened, currently holds about 5,000 pages and is growing by 100 - 150 pages per day. Parallel to the CEEC model project, a conceptual project, the "Codex Electronicus Colonensis" (CEC), is at work on the definition of an abstract model for the representation of medieval codices in digital form. The following paper has grown out of the design considerations for the mentioned CEC project. The paper reflects a growing concern of the author's that some of the recent advances in digital (research) libraries are being diluted because it is not clear whether the advances really reach the audience for whom the projects would be most useful. Many, if not most, digitization projects have aimed at existing collections as individual servers. A digital library, however, should be more than a digitized one. It should be built according to principles that are not necessarily the same as those employed for paper collections, and it should be evaluated according to different measures which are not yet totally clear. The paper takes the form of six theses on various aspects of the ongoing transition to digital libraries. These theses have been presented at a forum on the German "retrodigitization" program. The program aims at the systematic conversion of library resources into digital form, concentrates for a number of reasons on material primarily of interest to the Humanities, and is funded by the German research council. As such this program is directly aimed at improving the overall infrastructure of academic research; other users of libraries are of interest, but are not central to the program.

0.018351734 = product of:
  0.055055197 = sum of:
    0.055055197 = weight(_text_:interest in 1242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055055197 = score(doc=1242,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.21956807 = fieldWeight in 1242, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1242)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The concept for the German Digital Libraries Program is imbedded in the Information Infrastructure Program of the German Federal Government for the years 1996-2000 which has been explicated in the Program Paper entitled "Information as Raw Material for Innovation".3 The Program Paper was published 1996 by the Federal Ministry for Education, Research, and Technology. The actual grants program "Global Info" was initiated by the Information and Communication Commission of the Joint Learned Societies to further technological advancement in enabling all researchers in Germany direct access to literature, research results, and other relevant information. This Commission was founded by four of the learned societies in 1995, and it has sponsored a series of workshops to increase awareness of leading edge technology and innovations in accessing electronic information sources. Now, nine of the leading research-level learned societies -- often those with umbrella responsibilities for other learned societies in their field -- are members of the Information and Communication Commission and represent the mathematicians, physicists, computer scientists, chemists, educational researchers, sociologists, psychologists, biologists and information technologists in the German Association of Engineers. (The German professional librarian societies are not members, as such, of this Commission, but are represented through delegates from libraries in the learned societies and in the future, hopefully, also by the German Association of Documentalists or through the cooperation between the documentalist and librarian professional societies.) The Federal Ministry earmarked 60 Million German Marks for projects within the framework of the German Digital Libraries Program in two phases over the next six years. The scope for the German Digital Libraries Program was announced in a press release in April 1997,4 and the first call for preliminary projects and expressions of interest in participation ended in July 1997. The Consortium members were suggested by the Information and Communication Commission of the Learned Societies (IuK Kommission), by key scientific research funding agencies in the German government, and by the publishers themselves. The first official meeting of the participants took place on December 1, 1997, at the Deutsche Bibliothek, located in the renowned center of German book trade, Frankfurt, thus documenting the active role and participation of libraries and publishers. In contrast to the Digital Libraries Project of the National Science Foundation in the United States, the German Digital Libraries project is based on furthering cooperation with universities, scientific publishing houses (including various international publishers), book dealers, and special subject information centers, as well as academic and research libraries. The goals of the German Digital Libraries Project are to achieve: 1) efficient access to world wide information; 2) directly from the scientist's desktop; 3) while providing the organization for and stimulating fundamental structural changes in the information and communication process of the scientific community.

0.016116984 = product of:
  0.04835095 = sum of:
    0.04835095 = product of:
      0.0967019 = sum of:
        0.0967019 = weight(_text_:22 in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0967019 = score(doc=4872,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 4872, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4872)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:40:22

0.015955 = product of:
  0.047864996 = sum of:
    0.047864996 = product of:
      0.09572999 = sum of:
        0.09572999 = weight(_text_:22 in 6483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09572999 = score(doc=6483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6483, 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=6483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:43:01

0.013675714 = product of:
  0.04102714 = sum of:
    0.04102714 = product of:
      0.08205428 = sum of:
        0.08205428 = weight(_text_:22 in 4865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08205428 = score(doc=4865,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:59

0.013196101 = product of:
  0.039588302 = sum of:
    0.039588302 = product of:
      0.079176605 = sum of:
        0.079176605 = weight(_text_:classification in 5782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079176605 = score(doc=5782,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.49260917 = fieldWeight in 5782, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5782)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Library and Archives Canada (LAC) has capitalized on the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) potential for organizing Web resources in two projects. Since 1995, LAC has been providing a service that offers links to authoritative Web resources about Canada categorized according to the DDC via its Web site. More recently, LAC has partnered with the federal government Department of Canadian Heritage to manage Web content related to Canadian culture in a DDC-based subject tree. Although the DDC works well to organize a broadly-based collection, challenges have been encountered in adapting it for a specific subject domain.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Moving beyond the presentation layer: content and context in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) System"

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 42(2006) nos.3/4, S.201-211

0.013060754 = product of:
  0.03918226 = sum of:
    0.03918226 = product of:
      0.07836452 = sum of:
        0.07836452 = weight(_text_:classification in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07836452 = score(doc=2760,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.48755667 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Special classifications have been somewhat neglected in KO compared to general classifications. The methodology of constructing special classifications is important, however, also for the methodology of constructing general classification schemes. The methodology of constructing special classifications can be regarded as one among about a dozen approaches to domain analysis. The methodology of (special) classification in LIS has been dominated by the rationalistic facet-analytic tradition, which, however, neglects the question of the empirical basis of classification. The empirical basis is much better grasped by, for example, bibliometric methods. Even the combination of rational and empirical methods is insufficient. This presentation will provide evidence for the necessity of historical and pragmatic methods for the methodology of classification and will point to the necessity of analyzing "paradigms". The presentation covers the methods of constructing classifications from Ranganathan to the design of ontologies in computer science and further to the recent "paradigm shift" in classification research. 1. Introduction Classification of a subject field is one among about eleven approaches to analyzing a domain that are specific for information science and in my opinion define the special competencies of information specialists (Hjoerland, 2002a). Classification and knowledge organization are commonly regarded as core qualifications of librarians and information specialists. Seen from this perspective one expects a firm methodological basis for the field. This paper tries to explore the state-of-the-art conceming the methodology of classification. 2. Classification: Science or non-science? As it is part of the curriculum at universities and subject in scientific journals and conferences like ISKO, orte expects classification/knowledge organization to be a scientific or scholarly activity and a scientific field. However, very often when information specialists classify or index documents and when they revise classification system, the methods seem to be rather ad hoc. Research libraries or scientific databases may employ people with adequate subject knowledge. When information scientists construct or evaluate systems, they very often elicit the knowledge from "experts" (Hjorland, 2002b, p. 260). Mostly no specific arguments are provided for the specific decisions in these processes.

0.011469833 = product of:
  0.034409497 = sum of:
    0.034409497 = weight(_text_:interest in 1219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034409497 = score(doc=1219,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.13723004 = fieldWeight in 1219, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1219)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Renardus project has brought together gateways that are 'large-scale national initiatives'. Within the European context this immediately introduces a diversity of organisations, as responsibility for national gateway initiatives is located differently, for example, in national libraries, national agencies with responsibility for educational technology infrastructure, and within universities or consortia of universities. Within the project, gateways are in some cases represented directly by their own personnel, in some cases by other departments or research centres, but not always by the people responsible for providing the gateway service. For example, the UK Resource Discovery Network (RDN) is represented in the project by UKOLN (formerly part of the Resource Discovery Network Centre) and the Institute of Learning and Research Technology (ILRT), University of Bristol -- an RDN 'hub' service provider -- who are primarily responsible for dissemination. Since the start of the project there have been changes within the organisational structures providing gateways and within the service ambitions of gateways themselves. Such lack of stability is inherent within the Internet service environment, and this presents challenges to Renardus activity that has to be planned for a three-year period. For example, within the gateway's funding environment there is now an exploration of 'subject portals' offering more extended services than gateways. There is also potential commercial interest for including gateways as a value-added component to existing commercial services, and new offerings from possible competitors such as Google's Web Directory and country based services. This short update on the Renardus project intends to inform the reader of progress within the project and to give some wider context to its main themes by locating the project within the broader arena of digital library activity. There are twelve partners in the project from Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, as well as the UK. In particular we will focus on the specific activity in which UKOLN is involved: the architectural design, the specification of functional requirements, reaching consensus on a collaborative business model, etc. We will also consider issues of metadata management where all partners have interests. We will highlight implementation issues that connect to areas of debate elsewhere. In particular we see connections with activity related to establishing architectural models for digital library services, connections to the services that may emerge from metadata sharing using the Open Archives Initiative metadata sharing protocol, and links with work elsewhere on navigation of digital information spaces by means of controlled vocabularies.

0.011396429 = product of:
  0.034189284 = sum of:
    0.034189284 = product of:
      0.06837857 = sum of:
        0.06837857 = weight(_text_:22 in 4878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06837857 = score(doc=4878,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4878, 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=4878)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:31

0.011310944 = product of:
  0.03393283 = sum of:
    0.03393283 = product of:
      0.06786566 = sum of:
        0.06786566 = weight(_text_:classification in 4607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06786566 = score(doc=4607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 4607, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)