Search (176 results, page 1 of 9)

0.08030888 = product of:
  0.40154436 = sum of:
    0.40154436 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.40154436 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42868128 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.07968613 = product of:
  0.19921531 = sum of:
    0.15811105 = weight(_text_:views in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15811105 = score(doc=2655,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.5414352 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
    0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04110426 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2655, 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=2655)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The term "facet" was introduced into the field of library classification systems by Ranganathan in the 1930's [Ranganathan, 1962]. A facet is a viewpoint or aspect. In contrast to traditional classification systems, faceted systems are modular in that a domain is analyzed in terms of baseline facets which are then synthesized. In this paper, the term "facet" is used in a broader meaning. Facets can describe different aspects on the same level of abstraction or the same aspect on different levels of abstraction. The notion of facets is related to database views, multicontexts and conceptual scaling in formal concept analysis [Ganter and Wille, 1999], polymorphism in object-oriented design, aspect-oriented programming, views and contexts in description logic and semantic networks. This paper presents a definition of facets in terms of faceted knowledge representation that incorporates the traditional narrower notion of facets and potentially facilitates translation between different knowledge representation formalisms. A goal of this approach is a modular, machine-aided knowledge base design mechanism. A possible application is faceted thesaurus construction for information retrieval and data mining. Reasoning complexity depends on the size of the modules (facets). A more general analysis of complexity will be left for future research.

Date

22. 1.2016 17:30:31

0.0642471 = product of:
  0.3212355 = sum of:
    0.3212355 = weight(_text_:3a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3212355 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42868128 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Ftannerlectures.utah.edu%2F_documents%2Fa-to-z%2Fp%2Fpopper80.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3f4QRTEH-OEBmoYr2J_c7H

0.044720557 = product of:
  0.22360279 = sum of:
    0.22360279 = weight(_text_:views in 4180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22360279 = score(doc=4180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.765705 = fieldWeight in 4180, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4180)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Enthält auf der CD-ROM (Windows mit Folio Views) die 6 Teile: Personen, Sport, POP, Land, Chronik und Gedenktage

0.041665923 = product of:
  0.2083296 = sum of:
    0.2083296 = weight(_text_:views in 3182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2083296 = score(doc=3182,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.7134035 = fieldWeight in 3182, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3182)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article presents and discusses the concept "subject" or subject matter (of documents) as it has been examined in library and information science (LIS) for more than 100 years. Different theoretical positions are outlined and it is found that the most important distinction is between document-oriented views versus request-oriented views. The document-oriented view conceive subject as something inherent in documents, whereas the request-oriented view (or the policy based view) understand subject as an attribution made to documents in order to facilitate certain uses of them. Related concepts such as concepts, aboutness, topic, isness and ofness are also briefly presented. The conclusion is that the most fruitful way of defining "subject" (of a document) is the documents informative or epistemological potentials, that is, the documents potentials of informing users and advance the development of knowledge.

Content

Contents: 1. Introduction; 2. Theoretical views: 2.1 Charles Ammi Cutter (1837-1903), 2.2 S. R. Ranganathan (1892-1972), 2.3 Patrick Wilson (1927-2003), 2.4 "Content oriented" versus "request oriented" views, 2.5 Issues of subjectivity and objectivity, 2.6 The subject knowledge view, 2.7 Other views and definitions; 3. Related concepts: 3.1 Words versus concepts versus subjects, 3.2 Aboutness, 3.3 Topic, 3.4 Isness, 3.5 Ofness, 3.6 Theme.

0.04015444 = product of:
  0.20077218 = sum of:
    0.20077218 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20077218 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42868128 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Vgl. unter: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizweHljdbcAhVS16QKHXcFD9QQFjABegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F271200105_Die_Autonomie_des_Menschen_und_der_Maschine_-_gegenwartige_Definitionen_von_Autonomie_zwischen_philosophischem_Hintergrund_und_technologischer_Umsetzbarkeit_Redigierte_Version_der_Magisterarbeit_Karls&usg=AOvVaw06orrdJmFF2xbCCp_hL26q.

0.04015444 = product of:
  0.20077218 = sum of:
    0.20077218 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20077218 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42868128 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

"Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."

0.026086992 = product of:
  0.13043496 = sum of:
    0.13043496 = weight(_text_:views in 3864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13043496 = score(doc=3864,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.44666123 = fieldWeight in 3864, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3864)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Autism is a complex neurological phenomenon that affects our society on individual, community, and cultural levels. There is an ongoing dialog between the medical, scientific and autism communities that critiques and molds the meaning of autism. The prevailing social model perspective, the neurodiversity paradigm, views autism as a natural variation in human neurology. Towards the goal of crystallizing the various facets of autism, this paper conducts a domain analysis of neurodiversity. Through this analysis, we explore the dynamics between diagnosis, identity, power, and inclusion.

0.026086992 = product of:
  0.13043496 = sum of:
    0.13043496 = weight(_text_:views in 4687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13043496 = score(doc=4687,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.44666123 = fieldWeight in 4687, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4687)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Series

News and views

0.022360278 = product of:
  0.11180139 = sum of:
    0.11180139 = weight(_text_:views in 919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11180139 = score(doc=919,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 919, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=919)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Document retrieval is a highly interactive process dealing with large amounts of information. Visual representations can provide both a means for managing the complexity of large information structures and an interface style well suited to interactive manipulation. The system we have designed utilizes visually displayed graphic structures and a direct manipulation interface style to supply an integrated environment for retrieval. A common visually displayed network structure is used for query, document content, and term relations. A query can be modified through direct manipulation of its visual form by incorporating terms from any other information structure the system displays. An associative thesaurus of terms and an inter-document network provide information about a document collection that can complement other retrieval aids. Visualization of these large data structures makes use of fisheye views and overview diagrams to help overcome some of the inherent difficulties of orientation and navigation in large information structures.

0.022360278 = product of:
  0.11180139 = sum of:
    0.11180139 = weight(_text_:views in 3264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11180139 = score(doc=3264,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 3264, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3264)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

We scho how the beenfits of the view-based search method, developed within the information retrieval community, can be extended with ontology-based search, developed within the Semantic Web community, and with semantic recommendations. As a proof of the concept, we have implemented an ontology-and view-based search engine and recommendations system Ontogaotr for RDF(S) repositories. Ontogator is innovative in two ways. Firstly, the RDFS.based ontologies used for annotating metadata are used in the user interface to facilitate view-based information retrieval. The views provide the user with an overview of the repositorys contents and a vocabulary for expressing search queries. Secondlyy, a semantic browsing function is provided by a recommender system. This system enriches instance level metadata by ontologies and provides the user with links to semantically related relevant resources. The semantic linkage is specified in terms of logical rules. To illustrate and discuss the ideas, a deployed application of Ontogator to a photo repository of the Helsinki University Museum is presented.

0.022360278 = product of:
  0.11180139 = sum of:
    0.11180139 = weight(_text_:views in 690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11180139 = score(doc=690,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 690, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=690)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Discusses the social constructionist movement in modern psychology, noting that social constructionism views discourse about the world not as a reflection or map of the world but as an artifact of communal interchange. Both as an orientation to knowledge and to the character of psychological constructs, constructionism presents a significant challenge to conventional understanding. Although the roots of constructionist thought may be traced to long-standing debates between empiricist and rationalist schools of thought, constructionism moves beyond the dualism of these traditions and places knowledge within the process of social interchange. Although the role of psychological explanation is problematic, a fully developed constructionism could furnish a means for understanding the process of science and invites the development of alternative criteria for the evaluation of psychological inquiry. (100 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

0.021922274 = product of:
  0.10961137 = sum of:
    0.10961137 = weight(_text_:22 in 5449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10961137 = score(doc=5449,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5449, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5449)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 2.1997 19:26:34

0.021922274 = product of:
  0.10961137 = sum of:
    0.10961137 = weight(_text_:22 in 5837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10961137 = score(doc=5837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5837, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5837)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

30.11.1996 13:22:37

0.021922274 = product of:
  0.10961137 = sum of:
    0.10961137 = weight(_text_:22 in 4085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10961137 = score(doc=4085,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4085, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4085)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

7.11.1999 18:22:39

0.021446116 = product of:
  0.10723058 = sum of:
    0.10723058 = weight(_text_:22 in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10723058 = score(doc=1936,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.6055961 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1936)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index, Edition 22 (DDC 22) will be issued simultaneously in print and web versions in July 2003. The new edition is the first full print update to the Dewey Decimal Classification system in seven years-it includes several significant updates and many new numbers and topics. DDC 22 also features some fundamental structural changes that have been introduced with the goals of promoting classifier efficiency and improving the DDC for use in a variety of applications in the web environment. Most importantly, the content of the new edition has been shaped by the needs and recommendations of Dewey users around the world. The worldwide user community has an important role in shaping the future of the DDC.

Object

DDC-22

0.021081474 = product of:
  0.105407365 = sum of:
    0.105407365 = weight(_text_:views in 4040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.105407365 = score(doc=4040,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.3609568 = fieldWeight in 4040, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4040)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Today's semantic web deals with meaning in a very restricted sense and offers static solutions. This is adequate for many scientific, technical purposes and for business transactions requiring machine-to-machine communication, but does not answer the needs of culture. Science, technology and business are concerned primarily with the latest findings, the state of the art, i.e. the paradigm or dominant world-view of the day. In this context, history is considered non-essential because it deals with things that are out of date. By contrast, culture faces a much larger challenge, namely, to re-present changes in ways of knowing; changing meanings in different places at a given time (synchronically) and over time (diachronically). Culture is about both objects and the commentaries on them; about a cumulative body of knowledge; about collective memory and heritage. Here, history plays a central role and older does not mean less important or less relevant. Hence, a Leonardo painting that is 400 years old, or a Greek statue that is 2500 years old, typically have richer commentaries and are often more valuable than their contemporary equivalents. In this context, the science of meaning (semantics) is necessarily much more complex than semantic primitives. A semantic web in the cultural domain must enable us to trace how meaning and knowledge organisation have evolved historically in different cultures. This paper examines five issues to address this challenge: 1) different world-views (i.e. a shift from substance to function and from ontology to multiple ontologies); 2) developments in definitions and meaning; 3) distinctions between words and concepts; 4) new classes of relations; and 5) dynamic models of knowledge organisation. These issues reveal that historical dimensions of cultural diversity in knowledge organisation are also central to classification of biological diversity. New ways are proposed of visualizing knowledge using a time/space horizon to distinguish between universals and particulars. It is suggested that new visualization methods make possible a history of questions as well as of answers, thus enabling dynamic access to cultural and historical dimensions of knowledge. Unlike earlier media, which were limited to recording factual dimensions of collective memory, digital media enable us to explore theories, ways of perceiving, ways of knowing; to enter into other mindsets and world-views and thus to attain novel insights and new levels of tolerance. Some practical consequences are outlined.

0.020832961 = product of:
  0.1041648 = sum of:
    0.1041648 = weight(_text_:views in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1041648 = score(doc=1216,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.35670176 = fieldWeight in 1216, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1216)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Metadata is not monolithic. Instead, it is helpful to think of metadata as multiple views that can be projected from a single information object. Such views can form the basis of customized information services, such as search engines. Multiple views -- different types of metadata associated with a Web resource -- can facilitate a "drill-down" search paradigm, whereby people start their searches at a high level and later narrow their focus using domain-specific search categories. In Figure 1, for example, Mona Lisa may be viewed from the perspective of non-specialized searchers, with categories that are valid across domains (who painted it and when?); in the context of a museum (when and how was it acquired?); in the geo-spatial context of a walking tour using mobile devices (where is it in the gallery?); and in a legal framework (who owns the rights to its reproduction?). Multiple descriptive views imply a modular approach to metadata. Modularity is the basis of metadata architectures such as the Resource Description Framework (RDF), which permit different communities of expertise to associate and maintain multiple metadata packages for Web resources. As noted elsewhere, static association of multiple metadata packages with resources is but one way of achieving modularity. Another method is to computationally derive order-making views customized to the current needs of a client. This paper examines the evolution and scope of the Dublin Core from this perspective of metadata modularization. Dublin Core began in 1995 with a specific goal and scope -- as an easy-to-create and maintain descriptive format to facilitate cross-domain resource discovery on the Web. Over the years, this goal of "simple metadata for coarse-granularity discovery" came to mix with another goal -- that of community and domain-specific resource description and its attendant complexity. A notion of "qualified Dublin Core" evolved whereby the model for simple resource discovery -- a set of simple metadata elements in a flat, document-centric model -- would form the basis of more complex descriptions by treating the values of its elements as entities with properties ("component elements") in their own right.

0.019376736 = product of:
  0.09688368 = sum of:
    0.09688368 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09688368 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, 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=3925)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.019376736 = product of:
  0.09688368 = sum of:
    0.09688368 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09688368 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, 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=3582)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38