Search (20 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03612282 = product of:
  0.09030705 = sum of:
    0.065880165 = weight(_text_:index in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.065880165 = score(doc=3644,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.2926791 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
    0.024426885 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024426885 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Calvin Mooers' work toward the resolution of the problem of ambiguity in indexing went unrecognized for years. At the time he introduced the "descriptor" - a term with a very distinct meaning-indexers were, for the most part, taking index terms directly from the document, without either rationalizing them with context or normalizing them with some kind of classification. It is ironic that Mooers' term came to be attached to the popular but unsophisticated indexing methods which he was trying to root out. Simply expressed, what Mooers did was to take the dictionary definitions of terms and redefine them so clearly that they could not be used in any context except that provided by the new definition. He did, at great pains, construct such meanings for over four hundred words; disambiguation and specificity were sought after and found for these words. He proposed that all indexers adopt this method so that when the index supplied a term, it also supplied the exact meaning for that term as used in the indexed document. The same term used differently in another document would be defined differently and possibly renamed to avoid ambiguity. The disambiguation was achieved by using unabridged dictionaries and other sources of defining terminology. In practice, this tends to produce circularity in definition, that is, word A refers to word B which refers to word C which refers to word A. It was necessary, therefore, to break this chain by creating a new, definitive meaning for each word. Eventually, means such as those used by Austin (q.v.) for PRECIS achieved the same purpose, but by much more complex means than just creating a unique definition of each term. Mooers, however, was probably the first to realize how confusing undefined terminology could be. Early automatic indexers dealt with distinct disciplines and, as long as they did not stray beyond disciplinary boundaries, a quick and dirty keyword approach was satisfactory. The trouble came when attempts were made to make a combined index for two or more distinct disciplines. A number of processes have since been developed, mostly involving tagging of some kind or use of strings. Mooers' solution has rarely been considered seriously and probably would be extremely difficult to apply now because of so much interdisciplinarity. But for a specific, weIl defined field, it is still weIl worth considering. Mooers received training in mathematics and physics from the University of Minnesota and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was the founder of Zator Company, which developed and marketed a coded card information retrieval system, and of Rockford Research, Inc., which engages in research in information science. He is the inventor of the TRAC computer language.

Footnote

Original in: Information retrieval today: papers presented at an Institute conducted by the Library School and the Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota, Sept. 19-22, 1962. Ed. by Wesley Simonton. Minneapolis, Minn.: The Center, 1963. S.21-36.

0.030428741 = product of:
  0.1521437 = sum of:
    0.1521437 = weight(_text_:index in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1521437 = score(doc=3144,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.67591333 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Effective use of syntagmatic relationships in index languages has suffered from inaccurate or incomplete characterization in both linguistics and information science. A number of 'myths' about syntagmatic relationships are debunked: the exclusivity of paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships, linearity as a defining characteristic of syntagmatic relationships, the restriction of syntagmatic relationships to surface linguistic units, the limitation of syntagmatic relationship benefits in document retrieval to precision, and the general irrelevance of syntagmatic relationships for document retrieval. None of the mechanisms currently used with index languages is powerful enough to achieve the levels of precision and recall that the expression of conceptual syntagmatic relationships is in theory capable of. New designs for expressing these relationships in index languages will need to take into account such characteristics as their semantic nature, systematicity, generalizability and constituent nature

0.030428741 = product of:
  0.1521437 = sum of:
    0.1521437 = weight(_text_:index in 3829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1521437 = score(doc=3829,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.67591333 = fieldWeight in 3829, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3829)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Theme

Preserved Context Index System (PRECIS)

0.024590136 = product of:
  0.12295068 = sum of:
    0.12295068 = weight(_text_:index in 834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12295068 = score(doc=834,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.5462205 = fieldWeight in 834, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=834)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Index language (the system of symbols for representing subject content after analysis) is considered as a separate component and a variable in an information retrieval system. It is suggested that for purposes of testing, comparing and evaluating index language, the techniques of structural linguistics may provide a descriptive methodology by which all such languages (hierarchical and faceted classification, analytico-synthetic indexing, traditional subject indexing, indexes and classifications based on automatic text analysis, etc.) could be described in term of a linguistic model, and compared on a common basis

0.021734815 = product of:
  0.10867407 = sum of:
    0.10867407 = weight(_text_:index in 2566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10867407 = score(doc=2566,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.48279524 = fieldWeight in 2566, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2566)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Theme

Preserved Context Index System (PRECIS)

0.019541508 = product of:
  0.09770754 = sum of:
    0.09770754 = weight(_text_:22 in 4506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09770754 = score(doc=4506,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4506, 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=4506)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

8.10.2000 11:52:22

0.01738785 = product of:
  0.08693925 = sum of:
    0.08693925 = weight(_text_:index in 3641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08693925 = score(doc=3641,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.3862362 = fieldWeight in 3641, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3641)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The second Cranfield experiment (Cranfield II) in the mid-1960s challenged assumptions held by librarians for nearly a century, namely, that the objective of providing subject access was to bring together all materials an a given topic and that the achieving of this objective required vocabulary control in the form of an index language. The results of Cranfield II were replicated by other retrieval experiments quick to follow its lead and increasing support was given to the opinion that natural language information systems could perform at least as effectively, and certainly more economically, than those employing index languages. When the results of empirical research dramatically counter conventional wisdom, an obvious course is to question the validity of the research and, in the case of retrieval experiments, this eventually happened. Retrieval experiments were criticized for their artificiality, their unrepresentative sampies, and their problematic definitions-particularly the definition of relevance. In the minds of some, at least, the relative merits of natural languages vs. indexing languages continued to be an unresolved issue. As with many eitherlor options, a seemingly safe course to follow is to opt for "both," and indeed there seems to be an increasing amount of counsel advising a combination of natural language and index language search capabilities. One strong voice offering such counsel is that of Robert Fugmann, a chemist by training, a theoretician by predilection, and, currently, a practicing information scientist at Hoechst AG, Frankfurt/Main. This selection from his writings sheds light an the capabilities and limitations of both kinds of indexing. Its special significance lies in the fact that its arguments are based not an empirical but an rational grounds. Fugmann's major argument starts from the observation that in natural language there are essentially two different kinds of concepts: 1) individual concepts, repre sented by names of individual things (e.g., the name of the town Augsburg), and 2) general concepts represented by names of classes of things (e.g., pesticides). Individual concepts can be represented in language simply and succinctly, often by a single string of alphanumeric characters; general concepts, an the other hand, can be expressed in a multiplicity of ways. The word pesticides refers to the concept of pesticides, but also referring to this concept are numerous circumlocutions, such as "Substance X was effective against pests." Because natural language is capable of infinite variety, we cannot predict a priori the manifold ways a general concept, like pesticides, will be represented by any given author. It is this lack of predictability that limits natural language retrieval and causes poor precision and recall. Thus, the essential and defining characteristic of an index language ls that it is a tool for representational predictability.

0.015791923 = product of:
  0.078959614 = sum of:
    0.078959614 = weight(_text_:22 in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.078959614 = score(doc=2943,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

31. 7.2006 14:22:21

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.1, S.77-93

0.015368836 = product of:
  0.07684418 = sum of:
    0.07684418 = weight(_text_:index in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07684418 = score(doc=1412,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Natural text phrasing is an indeterminate process and, thus, inherently lacks representational predictability. This holds true in particular in the Gase of general concepts and of their syntactical connectivity. Hence, natural language query phrasing and searching is an unending adventure of trial and error and, in most Gases, has an unsatisfactory outcome with respect to the recall and precision ratlos of the responses. Human indexing is based an knowledgeable document interpretation and aims - among other things - at introducing predictability into the representation of documents. Due to the indeterminacy of natural language text phrasing and image construction, any adequate indexing is also indeterminate in nature and therefore inherently defies any satisfactory algorithmization. But human indexing suffers from a different Set of deficiencies which are absent in the processing of non-interpreted natural language. An optimally effective information System combines both types of language in such a manner that their specific strengths are preserved and their weaknesses are avoided. lf the goal is a large and enduring information system for more than merely known-item searches, the expenditure for an advanced index language and its knowledgeable and careful employment is unavoidable.

0.01395822 = product of:
  0.0697911 = sum of:
    0.0697911 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0697911 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6089, 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=6089)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Pages

S.11-22

0.013040888 = product of:
  0.06520444 = sum of:
    0.06520444 = weight(_text_:index in 55) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06520444 = score(doc=55,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 55, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=55)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The terminological consistency of indexers working with a thesaurus as indexing aid remains low. This suggests that indexers cannot perceive easily or very clearly the meaning of each descriptor available as index term. This paper presents the background nd some of the findings of a small scale experiment designed to study the effect on interindexer terminological consistency of modifying the nature of the semantic information given with descriptors in a thesaurus. The study also provided some insights into the respective usefulness of standardized definitions and of traditional networks of hierarchical and associative relationships as means of providing essential meaning information in the thesaurus used as indexing aid

0.013040888 = product of:
  0.06520444 = sum of:
    0.06520444 = weight(_text_:index in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06520444 = score(doc=1148,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 1148, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1148)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Relationships between the terms in thesauri and Indexes are the subject of national and international standards. The standards for thesauri enumerate and provide criteria for three basic types of relationship: equivalence, hierarchical, and associative. Standards and guidelines for indexes draw an the thesaurus standards to provide less detailed guidance for showing relationships between the terms used in an Index. The international standard for multilingual thesauri adds recommendations for assuring equal treatment of the languages of a thesaurus. The present standards were developed when lookup and search were essentially manual, and the value of the kinds of relationships has never been determined. It is not clear whether users understand or can use the distinctions between kinds of relationships. On the other hand, sophisticated text analysis systems may be able both to assist with development of more powerful term relationship schemes and to use the relationships to improve retrieval.

0.013040888 = product of:
  0.06520444 = sum of:
    0.06520444 = weight(_text_:index in 984) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06520444 = score(doc=984,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 984, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=984)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Theme

Preserved Context Index System (PRECIS)

0.010867408 = product of:
  0.054337036 = sum of:
    0.054337036 = weight(_text_:index in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054337036 = score(doc=1462,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 1462, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1462)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A thesaurus is a controlled vocabulary designed to allow for effective information retrieval. It con- sists of different kinds of semantic relationships, with the aim of guiding users to the choice of the most suitable index and search terms for expressing a certain concept. The relational semantics of a thesaurus deal with methods to connect terms with related meanings and arc intended to enhance information recall capabilities. In this paper, focused on hierarchical relations, different aspects of the relational semantics of thesauri, and among them the possibility of developing richer structures, are analyzed. Thesauri are viewed as semantic tools providing, for operational purposes, the representation of the meaning of the terms. The paper stresses how theories of semantics, holding different perspectives about the nature of meaning and how it is represented, affect the design of the relational semantics of thesauri. The need for tools capable of representing the complexity of knowledge and of the semantics of terms as it occurs in the literature of their respective subject fields is advocated. It is underlined how this would contribute to improving the retrieval of information. To achieve this goal, even though in a preliminary manner, we explore the possibility of setting against the framework of thesaurus design the notions of language games and hermeneutic horizon.

0.009770754 = product of:
  0.04885377 = sum of:
    0.04885377 = weight(_text_:22 in 2245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04885377 = score(doc=2245,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2245, 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=2245)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.009770754 = product of:
  0.04885377 = sum of:
    0.04885377 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04885377 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:45:57

0.009770754 = product of:
  0.04885377 = sum of:
    0.04885377 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04885377 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4792, 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=4792)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.008693925 = product of:
  0.043469626 = sum of:
    0.043469626 = weight(_text_:index in 3634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043469626 = score(doc=3634,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.1931181 = fieldWeight in 3634, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3634)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In the continuing search for criteria for determining the form of compound headings (i.e., headings containing more than one word), many authors have attempted to deal with the problem of entry element and citation order. Among the proposed criteria are Cutter's concept of "significance," Kaiser's formula of "concrete/process," Prevost's "noun rule," and Farradane's categories of relationships*' (q.v.). One of the problems in applying the criteria has been the difficulty in determining what is "significant," particularly when two or more words in the heading all refer to concrete objects. In the following excerpt from Subject Catalogues: Headings and Structure, a widely cited book an the alphabetical subject catalog, E. J. Coates proposes the concept of "term significance," that is, "the word which evokes the clearest mental image," as the criterion for determining the entry element in a compound heading. Since a concrete object generally evokes a clearer mental image than an action or process, Coates' theory is in line with Kaiser's theory of "concrete/process" (q.v.) which Coates renamed "thing/action." For determining the citation order of component elements in a compound heading where the elements are equally "significant" (i.e., both or all evoking clear mental images), Coates proposes the use of "term relationship" as the determining factor. He has identified twenty different kinds of relationships among terms and set down the citation order for each. Another frequently encountered problem related to citation order is the determination of the entry element for a compound heading which contains a topic and a locality. Entering such headings uniformly under either the topic or the locality has proven to be infeasible in practice. Many headings of this type have the topic as the main heading, subdivided by the locality; others are entered under the locality as the main heading with the topic as the subdivision. No criteria or rules have been proposed that ensure consistency or predictability. In the following selection, Coates attempts to deal with this problem by ranking the "main areas of knowledge according to the extent to which they appear to be significantly conditioned by locality." The theory Coates expounded in his book was put into practice in compiling the British Technology Index for which Coates served as the editor from 1961 to 1977.

0.008374932 = product of:
  0.04187466 = sum of:
    0.04187466 = weight(_text_:22 in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04187466 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2246, 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=2246)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.00697911 = product of:
  0.03489555 = sum of:
    0.03489555 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03489555 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 106, 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=106)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 1.2021 14:24:32