Search (4494 results, page 1 of 225)

  1. Falquet, G.; Guyot, J.; Nerima, L.: Languages and tools to specify hypertext views on databases (1999) 0.28 
    0.28149354 = product of:
  0.4691559 = sum of:
    0.19296525 = weight(_text_:objects in 3968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19296525 = score(doc=3968,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.6102756 = fieldWeight in 3968, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3968)
    0.22783022 = weight(_text_:views in 3968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22783022 = score(doc=3968,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.66312 = fieldWeight in 3968, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3968)
    0.048360445 = weight(_text_:22 in 3968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048360445 = score(doc=3968,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3968, 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=3968)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    We present a declarative language for the construction of hypertext views on databases. The language is based on an object-oriented data model and a simple hypertext model with reference and inclusion links. A hypertext view specification consists in a collection of parameterized node schemes which specify how to construct node and links instances from the database contents. We show how this language can express different issues in hypertext view design. These include: the direct mapping of objects to nodes; the construction of complex nodes based on sets of objects; the representation of polymorphic sets of objects; and the representation of tree and graph structures. We have defined sublanguages corresponding to particular database models (relational, semantic, object-oriented) and implemented tools to generate Web views for these database models
    Date
    21.10.2000 15:01:22
  2. Gendt, M. van; Isaac, I.; Meij, L. van der; Schlobach, S.: Semantic Web techniques for multiple views on heterogeneous collections : a case study (2006) 0.17 
    0.17478408 = product of:
  0.2913068 = sum of:
    0.111408524 = weight(_text_:objects in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.111408524 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 2418, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2418)
    0.13153784 = weight(_text_:views in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13153784 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 2418, 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=2418)
    0.048360445 = weight(_text_:22 in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048360445 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2418, 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=2418)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Integrated digital access to multiple collections is a prominent issue for many Cultural Heritage institutions. The metadata describing diverse collections must be interoperable, which requires aligning the controlled vocabularies that are used to annotate objects from these collections. In this paper, we present an experiment where we match the vocabularies of two collections by applying the Knowledge Representation techniques established in recent Semantic Web research. We discuss the steps that are required for such matching, namely formalising the initial resources using Semantic Web languages, and running ontology mapping tools on the resulting representations. In addition, we present a prototype that enables the user to browse the two collections using the obtained alignment while still providing her with the original vocabulary structures.
    Source
    Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006
  3. Ackermann, E.: Piaget's constructivism, Papert's constructionism : what's the difference? (2001) 0.16 
    0.15649343 = product of:
  0.39123356 = sum of:
    0.23621474 = weight(_text_:3a in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23621474 = score(doc=692,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5043569 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 692, 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=692)
    0.15501882 = weight(_text_:views in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15501882 = score(doc=692,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.45119599 = fieldWeight in 692, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=692)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    What is the difference between Piaget's constructivism and Papert's "constructionism"? Beyond the mere play on the words, I think the distinction holds, and that integrating both views can enrich our understanding of how people learn and grow. Piaget's constructivism offers a window into what children are interested in, and able to achieve, at different stages of their development. The theory describes how children's ways of doing and thinking evolve over time, and under which circumstance children are more likely to let go of-or hold onto- their currently held views. Piaget suggests that children have very good reasons not to abandon their worldviews just because someone else, be it an expert, tells them they're wrong. Papert's constructionism, in contrast, focuses more on the art of learning, or 'learning to learn', and on the significance of making things in learning. Papert is interested in how learners engage in a conversation with [their own or other people's] artifacts, and how these conversations boost self-directed learning, and ultimately facilitate the construction of new knowledge. He stresses the importance of tools, media, and context in human development. Integrating both perspectives illuminates the processes by which individuals come to make sense of their experience, gradually optimizing their interactions with the world.
    Content
    Vgl.: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Piaget-%E2%80%99-s-Constructivism-%2C-Papert-%E2%80%99-s-%3A-What-%E2%80%99-s-Ackermann/89cbcc1e740a4591443ff4765a6ae8df0fdf5554. Darunter weitere Hinweise auf verwandte Beiträge. Auch unter: Learning Group Publication 5(2001) no.3, S.438.
  4. Qin, J.; Hernández, N.: Building interoperable vocabulary and structures for learning objects : an empirical study (2006) 0.14 
    0.1362799 = product of:
  0.34069973 = sum of:
    0.1856809 = weight(_text_:objects in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1856809 = score(doc=4926,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.58723795 = fieldWeight in 4926, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4926)
    0.15501882 = weight(_text_:views in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15501882 = score(doc=4926,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.45119599 = fieldWeight in 4926, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4926)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The structural, functional, and production views on learning objects influence metadata structure and vocabulary. The authors drew on these views and conducted a literature review and in-depth analysis of 14 learning objects and over 500 components in these learning objects to model the knowledge framework for a learning object ontology. The learning object ontology reported in this article consists of 8 top-level classes, 28 classes at the second level, and 34 at the third level. Except class Learning object, all other classes have the three properties of preferred term, related term, and synonym. To validate the ontology, we conducted a query log analysis that focused an discovering what terms users have used at both conceptual and word levels. The findings show that the main classes in the ontology are either conceptually or linguistically similar to the top terms in the query log data. The authors built an "Exercise Editor" as an informal experiment to test its adoption ability in authoring tools. The main contribution of this project is in the framework for the learning object domain and the methodology used to develop and validate an ontology.
  5. Hotho, A.; Bloehdorn, S.: Data Mining 2004 : Text classification by boosting weak learners based on terms and concepts (2004) 0.13 
    0.13272725 = product of:
  0.33181813 = sum of:
    0.2834577 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2834577 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5043569 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = 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)
    0.048360445 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048360445 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
  6. Malsburg, C. von der: ¬The correlation theory of brain function (1981) 0.13 
    0.13162208 = product of:
  0.3290552 = sum of:
    0.09284045 = weight(_text_:objects in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09284045 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
    0.23621474 = weight(_text_:3a in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23621474 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5043569 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 76, 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=76)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    A summary of brain theory is given so far as it is contained within the framework of Localization Theory. Difficulties of this "conventional theory" are traced back to a specific deficiency: there is no way to express relations between active cells (as for instance their representing parts of the same object). A new theory is proposed to cure this deficiency. It introduces a new kind of dynamical control, termed synaptic modulation, according to which synapses switch between a conducting and a non- conducting state. The dynamics of this variable is controlled on a fast time scale by correlations in the temporal fine structure of cellular signals. Furthermore, conventional synaptic plasticity is replaced by a refined version. Synaptic modulation and plasticity form the basis for short-term and long-term memory, respectively. Signal correlations, shaped by the variable network, express structure and relationships within objects. In particular, the figure-ground problem may be solved in this way. Synaptic modulation introduces exibility into cerebral networks which is necessary to solve the invariance problem. Since momentarily useless connections are deactivated, interference between di erent memory traces can be reduced, and memory capacity increased, in comparison with conventional associative memory
    Source
    http%3A%2F%2Fcogprints.org%2F1380%2F1%2FvdM_correlation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0g7DvZbQPb2U7dYb49b9v_
  7. Dick, S.J.: Astronomy's Three Kingdom System : a comprehensive classification system of celestial objects (2019) 0.13 
    0.12654951 = product of:
  0.31637377 = sum of:
    0.25995323 = weight(_text_:objects in 5455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25995323 = score(doc=5455,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.82213306 = fieldWeight in 5455, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5455)
    0.05642052 = weight(_text_:22 in 5455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05642052 = score(doc=5455,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5455, 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=5455)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Although classification has been an important aspect of astronomy since stellar spectroscopy in the late nineteenth century, to date no comprehensive classification system has existed for all classes of objects in the universe. Here we present such a system, and lay out its foundational definitions and principles. The system consists of the "Three Kingdoms" of planets, stars and galaxies, eighteen families, and eighty-two classes of objects. Gravitation is the defining organizing principle for the families and classes, and the physical nature of the objects is the defining characteristic of the classes. The system should prove useful for both scientific and pedagogical purposes.
    Date
    21.11.2019 18:46:22
  8. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2013) 0.12 
    0.12482806 = product of:
  0.31207016 = sum of:
    0.09284045 = weight(_text_:objects in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09284045 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
    0.21922971 = weight(_text_:views in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21922971 = score(doc=789,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.63808745 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Any ontological theory commits us to accept and classify a number of phenomena in a more or less specific way-and vice versa: a classification tends to reveal the theoretical outlook of its creator. Objects and their descriptions and relations are not just "given," but determined by theories. Knowledge is fallible, and consensus is rare. By implication, knowledge organization has to consider different theories/views and their foundations. Bibliographical classifications depend on subject knowledge and on the same theories as corresponding scientific and scholarly classifications. Some classifications are based on logical distinctions, others on empirical examinations, and some on mappings of common ancestors or on establishing functional criteria. To evaluate a classification is to involve oneself in the research which has produced the given classification. Because research is always based more or less on specific epistemological ideals (e.g., empiricism, rationalism, historicism, or pragmatism), the evaluation of classification includes the evaluation of the epistemological foundations of the research on which given classifications have been based. The field of knowledge organization itself is based on different approaches and traditions such as user-based and cognitive views, facet-analytical views, numeric taxonomic approaches, bibliometrics, and domain-analytic approaches. These approaches and traditions are again connected to epistemological views, which have to be considered. Only the domain-analytic view is fully committed to exploring knowledge organization in the light of subject knowledge and substantial scholarly theories.
  9. McMann Kramer, M.; Hopkins, J.: ¬An interview with Judith Hopkins (2005) 0.12 
    0.11993219 = product of:
  0.29983047 = sum of:
    0.21922971 = weight(_text_:views in 5105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21922971 = score(doc=5105,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.63808745 = fieldWeight in 5105, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5105)
    0.080600746 = weight(_text_:22 in 5105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.080600746 = score(doc=5105,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5105, 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=5105)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Judith Hopkins discusses her 47-year career in cataloging. Topics included are her cataloging education, her first job, her early participation in OCLC, her work documenting academic libraries' implementation of AACR2, AUTOCAT, and her views on the future of cataloging.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 41(2005) no.1, S.5-22
  10. Verwer, K.: Freiheit und Verantwortung bei Hans Jonas (2011) 0.11 
    0.11338308 = product of:
  0.5669154 = sum of:
    0.5669154 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.5669154 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5043569 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Content
    Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.
  11. Rossiter, B.N.; Sillitoe, T.J.; Heather, M.A.: Database support for very large hypertexts (1990) 0.11 
    0.11337497 = product of:
  0.28343743 = sum of:
    0.12997662 = weight(_text_:objects in 48) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12997662 = score(doc=48,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 48, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=48)
    0.15346082 = weight(_text_:views in 48) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15346082 = score(doc=48,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.44666123 = fieldWeight in 48, 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=48)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Current hypertext systems have been widely and effectively used on relatively small data volumes. Explores the potential of database technology for aiding the implementation of hypertext systems holding very large amounts of complex data. Databases meet many requirements of the hypermedium: persistent data management, large volumes, data modelling, multi-level architecture with abstractions and views, metadata integrated with operational data, short-term transaction processing and high-level end-user languages for searching and updating data. Describes a system implementing the storage, retrieval and recall of trails through hypertext comprising textual complex objects (to illustrate the potential for the use of data bases). Discusses weaknesses in current database systems for handling the complex modelling required
  12. Bianchini, C.; Willer, M.: ISBD resource and Its description in the context of the Semantic Web (2014) 0.11 
    0.11337497 = product of:
  0.28343743 = sum of:
    0.12997662 = weight(_text_:objects in 1998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12997662 = score(doc=1998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 1998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1998)
    0.15346082 = weight(_text_:views in 1998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15346082 = score(doc=1998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.44666123 = fieldWeight in 1998, 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=1998)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article explores the question "What is an International Standard for Bibliographic Description (ISBD) resource in the context of the Semantic Web, and what is the relationship of its description to the linked data?" This question is discussed against the background of the dichotomy between the description and access using the Semantic Web differentiation of the three logical layers: real-world objects, web of data, and special purpose (bibliographic) data. The representation of bibliographic data as linked data is discussed, distinguishing the description of a resource from the iconic/objective and the informational/subjective viewpoints. In the conclusion, the authors give views on possible directions of future development of the ISBD.
  13. Fachsystematik Bremen nebst Schlüssel 1970 ff. (1970 ff) 0.11 
    0.11060605 = product of:
  0.27651513 = sum of:
    0.23621474 = weight(_text_:3a in 3577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23621474 = score(doc=3577,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5043569 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 3577, 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=3577)
    0.040300373 = weight(_text_:22 in 3577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040300373 = score(doc=3577,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3577, 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=3577)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    1. Agrarwissenschaften 1981. - 3. Allgemeine Geographie 2.1972. - 3a. Allgemeine Naturwissenschaften 1.1973. - 4. Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft 2.1971. - 6. Allgemeines. 5.1983. - 7. Anglistik 3.1976. - 8. Astronomie, Geodäsie 4.1977. - 12. bio Biologie, bcp Biochemie-Biophysik, bot Botanik, zoo Zoologie 1981. - 13. Bremensien 3.1983. - 13a. Buch- und Bibliothekswesen 3.1975. - 14. Chemie 4.1977. - 14a. Elektrotechnik 1974. - 15 Ethnologie 2.1976. - 16,1. Geowissenschaften. Sachteil 3.1977. - 16,2. Geowissenschaften. Regionaler Teil 3.1977. - 17. Germanistik 6.1984. - 17a,1. Geschichte. Teilsystematik hil. - 17a,2. Geschichte. Teilsystematik his Neuere Geschichte. - 17a,3. Geschichte. Teilsystematik hit Neueste Geschichte. - 18. Humanbiologie 2.1983. - 19. Ingenieurwissenschaften 1974. - 20. siehe 14a. - 21. klassische Philologie 3.1977. - 22. Klinische Medizin 1975. - 23. Kunstgeschichte 2.1971. - 24. Kybernetik. 2.1975. - 25. Mathematik 3.1974. - 26. Medizin 1976. - 26a. Militärwissenschaft 1985. - 27. Musikwissenschaft 1978. - 27a. Noten 2.1974. - 28. Ozeanographie 3.1977. -29. Pädagogik 8.1985. - 30. Philosphie 3.1974. - 31. Physik 3.1974. - 33. Politik, Politische Wissenschaft, Sozialwissenschaft. Soziologie. Länderschlüssel. Register 1981. - 34. Psychologie 2.1972. - 35. Publizistik und Kommunikationswissenschaft 1985. - 36. Rechtswissenschaften 1986. - 37. Regionale Geograpgie 3.1975. - 37a. Religionswissenschaft 1970. - 38. Romanistik 3.1976. - 39. Skandinavistik 4.1985. - 40. Slavistik 1977. - 40a. Sonstige Sprachen und Literaturen 1973. - 43. Sport 4.1983. - 44. Theaterwissenschaft 1985. - 45. Theologie 2.1976. - 45a. Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Archäologie 1970. - 47. Volkskunde 1976. - 47a. Wirtschaftswissenschaften 1971 // Schlüssel: 1. Länderschlüssel 1971. - 2. Formenschlüssel (Kurzform) 1974. - 3. Personenschlüssel Literatur 5. Fassung 1968
  14. Proffitt, M.: Pulling it all together : use of METS in RLG cultural materials service (2004) 0.11 
    0.10982181 = product of:
  0.27455452 = sum of:
    0.21007393 = weight(_text_:objects in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21007393 = score(doc=767,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.6643839 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
    0.064480595 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064480595 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 767, 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=767)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    RLG has used METS for a particular application, that is as a wrapper for structural metadata. When RLG cultural materials was launched, there was no single way to deal with "complex digital objects". METS provides a standard means of encoding metadata regarding the digital objects represented in RCM, and METS has now been fully integrated into the workflow for this service.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.65-68
  15. Johnson, E.H.: Using IODyne : Illustrations and examples (1998) 0.11 
    0.10982181 = product of:
  0.27455452 = sum of:
    0.21007393 = weight(_text_:objects in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21007393 = score(doc=2341,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.6643839 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
    0.064480595 = weight(_text_:22 in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064480595 = score(doc=2341,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2341, 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=2341)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    IODyone is an Internet client program that allows one to retriev information from servers by dynamically combining information objects. Information objects are abstract representations of bibliographic data, typically titles (or title keywords), author names, subject and classification identifiers, and full-text search terms
    Date
    22. 9.1997 19:16:05
  16. Holetschek, J. et al.: Natural history in Europeana : accessing scientific collection objects via LOD (2016) 0.11 
    0.10651266 = product of:
  0.26628163 = sum of:
    0.1856809 = weight(_text_:objects in 3277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1856809 = score(doc=3277,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.58723795 = fieldWeight in 3277, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3277)
    0.080600746 = weight(_text_:22 in 3277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.080600746 = score(doc=3277,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3277, 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=3277)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
  17. Srinivasan, R.; Boast, R.; Becvar, K.M.; Furner, J.: Blobgects : digital museum catalogs and diverse user communities (2009) 0.10 
    0.09915917 = product of:
  0.24789792 = sum of:
    0.20759755 = weight(_text_:objects in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20759755 = score(doc=2754,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.656552 = fieldWeight in 2754, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2754)
    0.040300373 = weight(_text_:22 in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040300373 = score(doc=2754,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2754, 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=2754)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article presents an exploratory study of Blobgects, an experimental interface for an online museum catalog that enables social tagging and blogging activity around a set of cultural heritage objects held by a preeminent museum of anthropology and archaeology. This study attempts to understand not just whether social tagging and commenting about these objects is useful but rather whose tags and voices matter in presenting different expert perspectives around digital museum objects. Based on an empirical comparison between two different user groups (Canadian Inuit high-school students and museum studies students in the United States), we found that merely adding the ability to tag and comment to the museum's catalog does not sufficiently allow users to learn about or engage with the objects represented by catalog entries. Rather, the specialist language of the catalog provides too little contextualization for users to enter into the sort of dialog that proponents of Web 2.0 technologies promise. Overall, we propose a more nuanced application of Web 2.0 technologies within museums - one which provides a contextual basis that gives users a starting point for engagement and permits users to make sense of objects in relation to their own needs, uses, and understandings.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 18:52:32
  18. Borlund, P.: ¬The concept of relevance in IR (2003) 0.10 
    0.09717854 = product of:
  0.24294636 = sum of:
    0.111408524 = weight(_text_:objects in 1798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.111408524 = score(doc=1798,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 1798, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1798)
    0.13153784 = weight(_text_:views in 1798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13153784 = score(doc=1798,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 1798, 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=1798)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article introduces the concept of relevance as viewed and applied in the context of IR evaluation, by presenting an overview of the multidimensional and dynamic nature of the concept. The literature an relevance reveals how the relevance concept, especially in regard to the multidimensionality of relevance, is many faceted, and does not just refer to the various relevance criteria users may apply in the process of judging relevance of retrieved information objects. From our point of view, the multidimensionality of relevance explains why some will argue that no consensus has been reached an the relevance concept. Thus, the objective of this article is to present an overview of the many different views and ways by which the concept of relevance is used-leading to a consistent and compatible understanding of the concept. In addition, special attention is paid to the type of situational relevance. Many researchers perceive situational relevance as the most realistic type of user relevance, and therefore situational relevance is discussed with reference to its potential dynamic nature, and as a requirement for interactive information retrieval (IIR) evaluation.
  19. Ding, Y.; Jacob, E.K.; Zhang, Z.; Foo, S.; Yan, E.; George, N.L.; Guo, L.: Perspectives on social tagging (2009) 0.10 
    0.09717854 = product of:
  0.24294636 = sum of:
    0.111408524 = weight(_text_:objects in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.111408524 = score(doc=3290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
    0.13153784 = weight(_text_:views in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13153784 = score(doc=3290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 3290, 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=3290)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Social tagging is one of the major phenomena transforming the World Wide Web from a static platform into an actively shared information space. This paper addresses various aspects of social tagging, including different views on the nature of social tagging, how to make use of social tags, and how to bridge social tagging with other Web functionalities; it discusses the use of facets to facilitate browsing and searching of tagging data; and it presents an analogy between bibliometrics and tagometrics, arguing that established bibliometric methodologies can be applied to analyze tagging behavior on the Web. Based on the Upper Tag Ontology (UTO), a Web crawler was built to harvest tag data from Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube in September 2007. In total, 1.8 million objects, including bookmarks, photos, and videos, 3.1 million taggers, and 12.1 million tags were collected and analyzed. Some tagging patterns and variations are identified and discussed.
  20. Yee, M.M.: What is a work? : part 1: the user and the objects of the catalog (1994) 0.10 
    0.096094094 = product of:
  0.24023522 = sum of:
    0.1838147 = weight(_text_:objects in 735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1838147 = score(doc=735,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.5813359 = fieldWeight in 735, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=735)
    0.05642052 = weight(_text_:22 in 735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05642052 = score(doc=735,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059490006 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 735, 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=735)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Part 1 of a series of articles, exploring the concept of 'the work' in cataloguing practice, which attempts to construct a definition of the term based on AACR theory and practice. The study begins with a consideration of the objects of the catalogue, their history and the evidence that bears on the question of the degree to which the user needs access to the work, as opposed to a particular edition of the work
    Footnote
    Vgl. auch: Pt.2: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 19(1994) no.2, S.5-22; Pt.3: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 20(1995) no.1, S.25-46; Pt.4: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 20(1995) no.2, S.3-24

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 3784
  • m 404
  • el 229
  • s 177
  • x 43
  • b 39
  • r 25
  • i 24
  • ? 8
  • n 4
  • p 4
  • d 3
  • u 2
  • z 2
  • au 1
  • h 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications