Search (1199 results, page 1 of 60)

0.12748055 = product of:
  0.2549611 = sum of:
    0.2549611 = sum of:
      0.2000304 = weight(_text_:maps in 155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2000304 = score(doc=155,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679237 = queryNorm
          0.70240563 = fieldWeight in 155, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=155)
      0.054930698 = weight(_text_:22 in 155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054930698 = score(doc=155,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747006 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679237 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 155, 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=155)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There is increasing evidence that libraries, traditional and digital, must support learning, especially the acquisition and enhancement of scientific reasoning skills. This paper discusses how classificatory structures, such as a faceted thesaurus, can be enhanced for novice science learning. Physical geography is used as the domain discipline, and the Alexandria Digital Earth Prototype project provides the test bed for instructional materials and user analyses. The use of concept maps and topic maps for developing digital learning spaces is briefly discussed.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.12668116 = product of:
  0.25336233 = sum of:
    0.25336233 = sum of:
      0.2121643 = weight(_text_:maps in 2736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2121643 = score(doc=2736,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679237 = queryNorm
          0.7450137 = fieldWeight in 2736, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2736)
      0.041198023 = weight(_text_:22 in 2736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041198023 = score(doc=2736,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747006 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679237 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2736, 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=2736)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A consensus map of science is generated from an analysis of 20 existing maps of science. These 20 maps occur in three basic forms: hierarchical, centric, and noncentric (or circular). The consensus map, generated from consensus edges that occur in at least half of the input maps, emerges in a circular form. The ordering of areas is as follows: mathematics is (arbitrarily) placed at the top of the circle, and is followed clockwise by physics, physical chemistry, engineering, chemistry, earth sciences, biology, biochemistry, infectious diseases, medicine, health services, brain research, psychology, humanities, social sciences, and computer science. The link between computer science and mathematics completes the circle. If the lowest weighted edges are pruned from this consensus circular map, a hierarchical map stretching from mathematics to social sciences results. The circular map of science is found to have a high level of correspondence with the 20 existing maps, and has a variety of advantages over hierarchical and centric forms. A one-dimensional Riemannian version of the consensus map is also proposed.

Date

22. 3.2009 12:49:33

0.10109107 = sum of:
  0.080492064 = product of:
    0.24147618 = sum of:
      0.24147618 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.24147618 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.42965913 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679237 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.020599011 = product of:
    0.041198023 = sum of:
      0.041198023 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041198023 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747006 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679237 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.

Date

8. 1.2013 10:22:32

0.100348376 = product of:
  0.20069675 = sum of:
    0.20069675 = sum of:
      0.17323141 = weight(_text_:maps in 2758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17323141 = score(doc=2758,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679237 = queryNorm
          0.6083011 = fieldWeight in 2758, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2758)
      0.027465349 = weight(_text_:22 in 2758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027465349 = score(doc=2758,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747006 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679237 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2758, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2758)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The representation of information contents by graphical maps is an extended ongoing research topic. In this paper we introduce the application of UDC codes for the subject maps development. We use the following graphic representation methodologies: 1) Multidimensional scaling (MDS), 2) Cluster analysis, 3) Neural networks (Self Organizing Map - SOM). Finally, we conclude about the application viability of every kind of map. 1. Introduction Advanced techniques for Information Retrieval (IR) currently make up one of the most active areas for research in the field of library and information science. New models representing document content are replacing the classic systems in which the search terms supplied by the user were compared against the indexing terms existing in the inverted files of a database. One of the topics most often studied in the last years is bibliographic browsing, a good complement to querying strategies. Since the 80's, many authors have treated this topic. For example, Ellis establishes that browsing is based an three different types of tasks: identification, familiarization and differentiation (Ellis, 1989). On the other hand, Cove indicates three different browsing types: searching browsing, general purpose browsing and serendipity browsing (Cove, 1988). Marcia Bates presents six different types (Bates, 1989), although the classification of Bawden is the one that really interests us: 1) similarity comparison, 2) structure driven, 3) global vision (Bawden, 1993). The global vision browsing implies the use of graphic representations, which we will call map displays, that allow the user to get a global idea of the nature and structure of the information in the database. In the 90's, several authors worked an this research line, developing different types of maps. One of the most active was Xia Lin what introduced the concept of Graphical Table of Contents (GTOC), comparing the maps to true table of contents based an graphic representations (Lin 1996). Lin applies the algorithm SOM to his own personal bibliography, analyzed in function of the words of the title and abstract fields, and represented in a two-dimensional map (Lin 1997). Later on, Lin applied this type of maps to create websites GTOCs, through a Java application.

Date

12. 9.2004 14:31:22

0.085913435 = product of:
  0.17182687 = sum of:
    0.17182687 = sum of:
      0.1237625 = weight(_text_:maps in 2853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1237625 = score(doc=2853,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679237 = queryNorm
          0.43459132 = fieldWeight in 2853, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2853)
      0.04806436 = weight(_text_:22 in 2853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04806436 = score(doc=2853,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747006 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679237 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2853, 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=2853)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The management of library "pick-up books" - a phrase that refers to books pulled off the shelves by readers, discarded in the library after use, and picked up by library assistants for reshelving - is an issue for many collection managers. This research attempts to use geographic information system (GIS) software as a tool to monitor the use of such books so that their distributions by book shelf-ranges can be displayed visually. With GIS, library floor layouts are drawn as maps. This research produces some explanations of the habits of library patrons browsing shelved materials, and makes suggestions to librarians on the expansion of library collections and the rearrangement potential for library space.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.209-216

0.085913435 = product of:
  0.17182687 = sum of:
    0.17182687 = sum of:
      0.1237625 = weight(_text_:maps in 2635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1237625 = score(doc=2635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679237 = queryNorm
          0.43459132 = fieldWeight in 2635, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2635)
      0.04806436 = weight(_text_:22 in 2635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04806436 = score(doc=2635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747006 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679237 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2635, 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=2635)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

Topic maps

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.07906896 = product of:
  0.15813792 = sum of:
    0.15813792 = product of:
      0.31627584 = sum of:
        0.31627584 = weight(_text_:maps in 4726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.31627584 = score(doc=4726,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            1.1106008 = fieldWeight in 4726, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There is a natural overlap and complement between Knowledge Organization (KO) and Topic Maps. I am convinced that KO, with its relevant knowledge of an experiences in concept organization, can strongly contribute in this area. Since this ides impacts both the KO and TM communities, this chapter offers an invitation to anyone interested in TMs to draw from the KO background and to KO experts to include the case of KO with TMs in their research.

Object

Topic maps

Source

XML topic maps: creating and using topic maps for the Web. Eds.: Park, J. u. S. Hunting

0.07016674 = product of:
  0.14033347 = sum of:
    0.14033347 = product of:
      0.28066695 = sum of:
        0.28066695 = weight(_text_:maps in 5642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.28066695 = score(doc=5642,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.9855604 = fieldWeight in 5642, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5642)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although maps have been used for thousands of years, they have not been maintained or organized as well as printed books until relatively recently. Maps were often treated as ephemeral material. Early attempts at map cataloging are much more scattered than book cataloging, and printed catalogs of early libraries often omitted the mention of maps. It was only after map use became commonplace and thematic maps increased in number that cataloging and classification attempts began in earnest. The classification and cataloging of maps started to come together in the early part of the twentieth century. This article will examine how maps were organized in early collections and some of the advice provided for catalogers of map collections from the end of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth.

0.07016674 = product of:
  0.14033347 = sum of:
    0.14033347 = product of:
      0.28066695 = sum of:
        0.28066695 = weight(_text_:maps in 5643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.28066695 = score(doc=5643,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.9855604 = fieldWeight in 5643, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5643)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although maps have been used for thousands of years, they have not been maintained or organized as well as printed books until relatively recently. Maps were often treated as ephemeral material. Early attempts at map cataloging are much more scattered than book cataloging, and printed catalogs of early libraries often omitted the mention of maps. It was only after map use became commonplace and thematic maps increased in number that cataloging and classification attempts began in earnest. The classification and cataloging of maps started to come together in the early part of the twentieth century. This article will examine how maps were organized in early collections and some of the advice provided for catalogers of map collections from the end of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth.

0.06918534 = product of:
  0.13837068 = sum of:
    0.13837068 = product of:
      0.27674136 = sum of:
        0.27674136 = weight(_text_:maps in 3143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27674136 = score(doc=3143,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.9717757 = fieldWeight in 3143, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3143)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Topic Maps auf der einen Seite und das Programm Concepto auf der anderen Seite werden beschrieben. Mt Topic Maps können Wortnetze und einfache Satzstrukturen dargestellt werden. Concepto dient zur Erfassung, Bearbeitung und Visualisierung von Wortschatz und Strukturen. Es unterstützt ein Wortmodell, bei dem die verschiedenen Lesarten eines Wortes erfasst und einfachen, formalsprachlichen Begriffen zugewiesen werden können. Die Funktionen beider Systeme werden verglichen. Es wird dargestellt, was an Topic Maps und an Concepto ergänzt werden müsste, wenn beide Systeme einen kompatiblen, wechselseitigen Datenaustausch zulassen sollen. Diese Erweiterungen würden die Anwendbarkeit der Systeme noch interessanter machen.

Object

Topic maps

0.064961776 = product of:
  0.12992355 = sum of:
    0.12992355 = product of:
      0.2598471 = sum of:
        0.2598471 = weight(_text_:maps in 4341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2598471 = score(doc=4341,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.9124516 = fieldWeight in 4341, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Eleven middle school children constructed hierarchical maps for two science categories selected from two Web directories, Yahooligans! and KidsClick! For each category, children constructed a pair of maps: one without links and one with links. Forty-tour maps were analyzed to identify similarities and differences. The structures of the maps were compared to the structures employed by the directories. Children were able to construct hierarchical maps and articulate the relationships among the concepts. At the global level (whole map), children's maps were not alike and did not match the structures of the Web directories. At the local levels (superordinate and subordinate), however, children shared similarities in the conceptual configurations, especially for the concrete concepts. For these concepts, substantial overlap was found between the children's structures and those employed in the directories. For the abstract concepts the configurations were diverse and did not match those in the directories. The findings of this study have impl!cations for design of systems that are more supportive of children's conceptual structures.

0.0625095 = product of:
  0.125019 = sum of:
    0.125019 = product of:
      0.250038 = sum of:
        0.250038 = weight(_text_:maps in 5477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.250038 = score(doc=5477,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.87800705 = fieldWeight in 5477, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5477)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

Topic maps

0.0625095 = product of:
  0.125019 = sum of:
    0.125019 = product of:
      0.250038 = sum of:
        0.250038 = weight(_text_:maps in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.250038 = score(doc=1065,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.87800705 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

Topic maps

0.06188125 = product of:
  0.1237625 = sum of:
    0.1237625 = product of:
      0.247525 = sum of:
        0.247525 = weight(_text_:maps in 3149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.247525 = score(doc=3149,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.86918265 = fieldWeight in 3149, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Topic Maps is an international standard technology for describing knowledge structures and using them to improve the findability of information. It is based on a formal model that subsumes those of traditional finding aids such as indexes, glossaries, and thesauri, and extends them to cater for the additional complexities of digital information. Topic Maps is increasingly used in enterprise information integration, knowledge management, e-learning, and digital libraries, and as the foundation for Web-based information delivery solutions. This entry provides a comprehensive treatment of the core concepts, as well as describing the background and current status of the standard and its relationship to traditional knowledge organization techniques.

Object

Topic maps

0.06188125 = product of:
  0.1237625 = sum of:
    0.1237625 = product of:
      0.247525 = sum of:
        0.247525 = weight(_text_:maps in 1421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.247525 = score(doc=1421,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.86918265 = fieldWeight in 1421, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1421)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Google Maps und Google Earth bringen die Welt zu Ihnen nach Hause. Sie können damit Kneipen suchen, Reisen planen oder einfach träumen. So nutzen Sie die Dienste optimal. Die ganze Welt auf Ihrem PC. Eine leistungsfähige Software, die Bilder der Erde aus allen Blickwinkeln und mit allen möglichen Zusatzinfos zeigt- und das für Privatanwender gratis: Google hat mit Google Earth und Google Maps das Internet wieder ein Stück mehr geprägt. Das Unternehmen trägt Kartendaten und Satellitenbilder aus der ganzen Welt zusammen und verbessert laufend die Genauigkeit. Eine engagierte Community programmiert dazu eine Vielzahl von Plug-ins und anderen Erweiterungen, die das Angebot noch vielfältiger und spannender machen. Wir zeigen Ihnen, was Sie mit dem Internet-Dienst Google Maps (http://maps.gooole.de) und der Software Google Earth (http://earth.googl.de) alles anfangen können.

Object

Google Maps

0.061366733 = product of:
  0.12273347 = sum of:
    0.12273347 = sum of:
      0.08840178 = weight(_text_:maps in 5265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08840178 = score(doc=5265,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679237 = queryNorm
          0.31042236 = fieldWeight in 5265, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5265)
      0.034331687 = weight(_text_:22 in 5265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034331687 = score(doc=5265,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747006 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679237 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5265, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5265)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) provides access to more than 30 publicly available molecular biology resources, offering an effective discovery space through high levels of data integration among large-scale data repositories. The foundation for many services is GenBank®, a public repository of DNA sequences from more than 133,000 different organisms. GenBank is accessible through the Entrez retrieval system, which integrates data from the major DNA and protein sequence databases, along with resources for taxonomy, genome maps, sequence variation, gene expression, gene function and phenotypes, protein structure and domain information, and the biomedical literature via PubMed®. Computational tools allow scientists to analyze vast quantities of diverse data. The BLAST® sequence similarity programs are instrumental in identifying genes and genetic features. Other tools support mapping disease loci to the genome, identifying new genes, comparing genomes, and relating sequence data to model protein structures. A basic research program in computational molecular biology enhances the database and software tool development initiatives. Future plans include further data integration, enhanced genome annotation and protein classification, additional data types, and links to a wider range of resources.

Date

22. 7.2006 14:58:34

0.061366733 = product of:
  0.12273347 = sum of:
    0.12273347 = sum of:
      0.08840178 = weight(_text_:maps in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08840178 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679237 = queryNorm
          0.31042236 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
      0.034331687 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034331687 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747006 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679237 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.

0.05930172 = product of:
  0.11860344 = sum of:
    0.11860344 = product of:
      0.23720688 = sum of:
        0.23720688 = weight(_text_:maps in 620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23720688 = score(doc=620,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.8329506 = fieldWeight in 620, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=620)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Verschiedene Szenarien in Groupware-basierten Umgebungen verdeutlichen die Probleme, Wissensstrukturen im Allgemeinen und organisationale Wissensstrukturen im Speziellen zu identifizieren. Durch den Einsatz von Topic Maps, definiert im ISOStandard "ISO/IEC 13250 Topic Maps", in Groupware-basierten organisationalen Wissensbasen wird es möglich, die Lücke zwischen Wissen und Information zu schließen. In diesem Beitrag werden die Ziele des Forschungsprojektes K-Discovery - der Einsatz von Topic Maps in Groupware-basierten Umgebungen - vorgestellt. Aufbauend auf diesen Zielen wird ein Architekturmodell sowie zwei Implementationsansätze präsentiert, in dem durch den Einsatz von Topic Maps in einer prozessorientierten GroupwareUmgebung Wissensstrukturen generiert werden. Der Beitrag schließt mit einigen abschließenden Ausführungen.

Object

Topic maps

0.05930172 = product of:
  0.11860344 = sum of:
    0.11860344 = product of:
      0.23720688 = sum of:
        0.23720688 = weight(_text_:maps in 2186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23720688 = score(doc=2186,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.8329506 = fieldWeight in 2186, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2186)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Topic Maps are a standardized modelling approach for the semantic annotation and description of WWW resources. They enable an improved search and navigational access on information objects stored in semi-structured information spaces like the WWW. However, the according standards ISO 13250 and XTM (XML Topic Maps) lack formal semantics, several questions concerning e.g. subclassing, inheritance or merging of topics are left open. The proposed TMUML meta model, directly derived from the well known UML meta model, is a meta model for Topic Maps which enables semantic constraints to be formulated in OCL (object constraint language) in order to answer such open questions and overcome possible inconsistencies in Topic Map repositories. We will examine the XTM merging conditions and show, in several examples, how the TMUML meta model enables semantic constraints for Topic Map merging to be formulated in OCL. Finally, we will show how the TM validation process, i.e., checking if a Topic Map is well formed, includes our merging conditions.

Object

Topic maps

0.05930172 = product of:
  0.11860344 = sum of:
    0.11860344 = product of:
      0.23720688 = sum of:
        0.23720688 = weight(_text_:maps in 2369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23720688 = score(doc=2369,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.8329506 = fieldWeight in 2369, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2369)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As information becomes richer and more complex, alternative information-organization methods are needed to more effectively and efficiently retrieve information from various systems, including the Web. The objective of this study is to explore how a Topic Maps-based ontology approach affects users' searching performance. Forty participants participated in a task-based evaluation where two dependent variables, recall and search time, were measured. The results of this study indicate that a Topic Maps-based ontology information retrieval (TOIR) system has a significant and positive effect on both recall and search time, compared to a thesaurus-based information retrieval (TIR) system. These results suggest that the inclusion of a Topic Maps-based ontology is a beneficial approach to take when designing information retrieval systems.

Object

Topic maps