Search (162 results, page 1 of 9)

  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  1. Söhler, M.: Schluss mit Schema F (2011) 0.02 
    0.015286265 = product of:
  0.091717586 = sum of:
    0.091717586 = weight(_text_:suchmaschine in 4439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.091717586 = score(doc=4439,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21191008 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.4328137 = fieldWeight in 4439, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4439)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Content
    "Wörter haben oft mehrere Bedeutungen. Einige kennen den "Kanal" als künstliche Wasserstraße, andere vom Fernsehen. Die Waage kann zum Erfassen des Gewichts nützlich sein oder zur Orientierung auf der Horoskopseite. Casablanca ist eine Stadt und ein Film zugleich. Wo Menschen mit der Zeit Bedeutungen unterscheiden und verarbeiten lernen, können dies Suchmaschinen von selbst nicht. Stets listen sie dumpf hintereinander weg alles auf, was sie zu einem Thema finden. Damit das nicht so bleibt, haben sich nun Google, Yahoo und die zu Microsoft gehörende Suchmaschine Bing zusammengetan, um der Suche im Netz mehr Verständnis zu verpassen. Man spricht dabei auch von einer "semantischen Suche". Das Ergebnis heißt Schema.org. Wer die Webseite einmal besucht, sich ein wenig in die Unterstrukturen hereinklickt und weder Vorkenntnisse im Programmieren noch im Bereich des semantischen Webs hat, wird sich überfordert und gelangweilt wieder abwenden. Doch was hier entstehen könnte, hat das Zeug dazu, Teile des Netzes und speziell die Funktionen von Suchmaschinen mittel- oder langfristig zu verändern. "Große Player sind dabei, sich auf Standards zu einigen", sagt Daniel Bahls, Spezialist für Semantische Technologien beim ZBW Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft in Hamburg. "Die semantischen Technologien stehen schon seit Jahren im Raum und wurden bisher nur im kleineren Kontext verwendet." Denn Schema.org lädt Entwickler, Forscher, die Semantic-Web-Community und am Ende auch alle Betreiber von Websites dazu ein, an der Umgestaltung der Suche im Netz mitzuwirken. Inhalte von Websites sollen mit einem speziellen, aber einheitlichen Vokabular für die Crawler - die Analyseprogramme der Suchmaschinen - gekennzeichnet und aufbereitet werden.
    Indem Schlagworte, sogenannte Tags, in den für Normal-User nicht sichtbaren Teil des Codes von Websites eingebettet werden, sind Suchmachinen nicht mehr so sehr auf die Analyse der natürlichen Sprache angewiesen, um Texte inhaltlich zu erfassen. Im Blog ZBW Mediatalk wird dies als "Semantic Web light" bezeichnet - ein semantisches Web auf niedrigster Ebene. Aber selbst das werde "schon viel bewirken", meint Bahls. "Das semantische Web wird sich über die nächsten Jahrzehnte evolutionär weiterentwickeln." Einen "Abschluss" werde es nie geben, "da eine einheitliche Formalisierung von Begrifflichkeiten auf feiner Stufe kaum möglich ist". Die Ergebnisse aus Schema.org würden "zeitnah" in die Suchmaschine integriert, "denn einen Zeitplan" gebe es nicht, so Stefan Keuchel, Pressesprecher von Google Deutschland. Bis das so weit ist, hilft der Verweis von Daniel Bahns auf die bereits existierende semantische Suchmaschine Sig.ma. Geschwindigkeit und Menge der Ergebnisse nach einer Suchanfrage spielen hier keine Rolle. Sig.ma sammelt seine Informationen allein im Bereich des semantischen Webs und listet nach einer Anfrage alles Bekannte strukturiert auf.
  2. Koch, T.; Seiffert, F.; Wätjen, H.-J.: Informationen im Web anbieten und wiederfinden (1998) 0.01 
    0.014134051 = product of:
  0.084804304 = sum of:
    0.084804304 = weight(_text_:ranking in 1840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084804304 = score(doc=1840,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.4183332 = fieldWeight in 1840, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1840)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Content
    Enthält die einzelnen Beiträge: KOCH, T.: Übersicht über die verschiedenen Typen von Suchdiensten; SEIFFERT, F.: Hilfsmittel zur Wahl passender Suchdienste für bestimmte Zwecke; KOCH, T.: Konzeptsuche / Erweiterung der Suchanfrage; KOCH, T.: Kontrolliertes Vokabular; SEIFFERT, F.: Ranking; WÄTJEN, H.-J.: Integration von Searching und Browsing; KOCH, T.: Metadaten und Suchdienste
  3. Craven, T.C.: Variations in use of meta tag descriptions by Web pages in different languages (2004) 0.01 
    0.014134051 = product of:
  0.084804304 = sum of:
    0.084804304 = weight(_text_:ranking in 2569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084804304 = score(doc=2569,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.4183332 = fieldWeight in 2569, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2569)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Sets of top-ranking pages in 20 languages returned by the Google search engine were downloaded and analyzed for presence of meta tag descriptions and lengths of descriptions. Results showed significant differences in proportion of pages with descriptions and in lengths of descriptions depending on language; specifically, pages in major Western European languages showed higher proportions with descriptions, while pages in Chinese showed the lowest proportions. Descriptions were mostly in the languages of the pages, though English descriptions were provided on some non-English pages. With few exceptions, coding schemes adopted for diacritics and non-Roman characters were standard.
  4. Söhler, M.: "Dumm wie Google" war gestern : semantische Suche im Netz (2011) 0.01 
    0.0133754825 = product of:
  0.08025289 = sum of:
    0.08025289 = weight(_text_:suchmaschine in 4440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08025289 = score(doc=4440,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21191008 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.378712 = fieldWeight in 4440, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4440)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Content
    "6.500 Einzelsprachen so zu verstehen, dass noch die dümmsten Maschinen sie in all ihren Sätzen, Wörtern, Bedeutungen nicht nur erfassen, sondern auch verarbeiten können - das ist ein komplexer Vorgang, an dem große Teile des Internets inklusive fast aller Suchmaschinen bisher gescheitert sind. Wem schon der gerade gelesene Satz zu komplex erscheint, dem sei es einfacher ausgedrückt: Erstmal geht es um "Teekesselchen". Wörter haben oft mehrere Bedeutungen. Einige kennen den "Kanal" als künstliche Wasserstraße, andere kennen ihn vom Zappen am Fernsehgerät. Die Waage kann zum Erfassen des Gewichts nützlich sein oder zur Orientierung auf der Horoskopseite einer Zeitung. Casablanca ist eine Stadt und ein Film zugleich. Wo Menschen mit der Zeit zu unterscheiden lernen, lernen dies Suchmaschinen von selbst nicht. Nach einer entsprechenden Eingabe listen sie dumpf hintereinander weg alles auf, was sie zum Thema finden können. "Dumm wie Google", könnte man sagen, "doof wie Yahoo" oder "blöd wie Bing". Damit das nicht so bleibt, haben sich nun Google, Yahoo und die zu Microsoft gehörende Suchmaschine Bing zusammengetan, um der Suche im Netz mehr Verständnis zu verpassen. Man spricht dabei auch von einer "semantischen Suche". Das Ergebnis heißt Schema.org. Wer die Webseite einmal besucht, sich ein wenig in die Unterstrukturen hereinklickt und weder Vorkenntnisse im Programmieren noch im Bereich des semantischen Webs hat, wird sich überfordert und gelangweilt wieder abwenden.
    - "Gemeinsames Format für strukturierte Daten" Aber warum sollten Google, Yahoo und Bing plötzlich zusammenarbeiten, wo doch bisher die Konkurrenz das Verhältnis prägte? Stefan Keuchel, Pressesprecher von Google Deutschland, betont, alle beteiligten Unternehmen wollten "ein deutliches Zeichen setzen, um die Qualität der Suche zu verbessern". Man entwickele "ein gemeinsames Format für strukturierte Daten, mit dem Dinge ermöglicht werden, die heute noch nicht möglich sind - Stichwort: semantische Suche". Die Ergebnisse aus Schema.org würden "zeitnah" in die Suchmaschine integriert, "denn einen Zeitplan" gebe es nicht. "Erst mit der Einigung auf eine gemeinsame Sprache können Suchmaschinen einen Mehrwert durch semantische Technologien generieren", antwortet Daniel Bahls auf die Frage nach Gemeinsamkeit und Konkurrenz der Suchmaschinen. Er weist außerdem darauf hin, dass es bereits die semantische Suchmaschine Sig.ma gibt. Geschwindigkeit und Menge der Ergebnisse nach einer Suchanfrage spielen hier keine Rolle. Sig.ma sammelt seine Informationen allein im Bereich des semantischen Webs und listet nach einer Anfrage alles Bekannte strukturiert auf."
  5. Hawking, D.; Zobel, J.: Does topic metadata help with Web search? (2007) 0.01 
    0.010095751 = product of:
  0.0605745 = sum of:
    0.0605745 = weight(_text_:ranking in 204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0605745 = score(doc=204,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 204, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=204)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    It has been claimed that topic metadata can be used to improve the accuracy of text searches. Here, we test this claim by examining the contribution of metadata to effective searching within Web sites published by a university with a strong commitment to and substantial investment in metadata. The authors use four sets of queries, a total of 463, extracted from the university's official query logs and from the university's site map. The results are clear: The available metadata is of little value in ranking answers to those queries. A follow-up experiment with the Web sites published in a particular government jurisdiction confirms that this conclusion is not specific to the particular university. Examination of the metadata present at the university reveals that, in addition to implementation deficiencies, there are inherent problems in trying to use subject and description metadata to enhance the searchability of Web sites. Our experiments show that link anchor text, which can be regarded as metadata created by others, is much more effective in identifying best answers to queries than other textual evidence. Furthermore, query-independent evidence such as link counts and uniform resource locator (URL) length, unlike subject and description metadata, can substantially improve baseline performance.
  6. White, H.: Examining scientific vocabulary : mapping controlled vocabularies with free text keywords (2013) 0.01 
    0.009068082 = product of:
  0.05440849 = sum of:
    0.05440849 = product of:
      0.081612736 = sum of:
        0.04099074 = weight(_text_:29 in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04099074 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
        0.040622 = weight(_text_:22 in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040622 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1953, 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=1953)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    29. 5.2015 19:09:22
  7. Khoo, M.J.; Ahn, J.-w.; Binding, C.; Jones, H.J.; Lin, X.; Massam, D.; Tudhope, D.: Augmenting Dublin Core digital library metadata with Dewey Decimal Classification (2015) 0.01 
    0.008076601 = product of:
  0.0484596 = sum of:
    0.0484596 = weight(_text_:ranking in 2320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0484596 = score(doc=2320,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.23904754 = fieldWeight in 2320, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2320)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to describe a new approach to a well-known problem for digital libraries, how to search across multiple unrelated libraries with a single query. Design/methodology/approach - The approach involves creating new Dewey Decimal Classification terms and numbers from existing Dublin Core records. In total, 263,550 records were harvested from three digital libraries. Weighted key terms were extracted from the title, description and subject fields of each record. Ranked DDC classes were automatically generated from these key terms by considering DDC hierarchies via a series of filtering and aggregation stages. A mean reciprocal ranking evaluation compared a sample of 49 generated classes against DDC classes created by a trained librarian for the same records. Findings - The best results combined weighted key terms from the title, description and subject fields. Performance declines with increased specificity of DDC level. The results compare favorably with similar studies. Research limitations/implications - The metadata harvest required manual intervention and the evaluation was resource intensive. Future research will look at evaluation methodologies that take account of issues of consistency and ecological validity. Practical implications - The method does not require training data and is easily scalable. The pipeline can be customized for individual use cases, for example, recall or precision enhancing. Social implications - The approach can provide centralized access to information from multiple domains currently provided by individual digital libraries. Originality/value - The approach addresses metadata normalization in the context of web resources. The automatic classification approach accounts for matches within hierarchies, aggregating lower level matches to broader parents and thus approximates the practices of a human cataloger.
  8. Wolfekuhler, M.R.; Punch, W.F.: Finding salient features for personal Web pages categories (1997) 0.01 
    0.007934572 = product of:
  0.047607433 = sum of:
    0.047607433 = product of:
      0.07141115 = sum of:
        0.035866898 = weight(_text_:29 in 2673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035866898 = score(doc=2673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 2673, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2673)
        0.03554425 = weight(_text_:22 in 2673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03554425 = score(doc=2673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2673, 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=2673)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:08:06
    Source
    Computer networks and ISDN systems. 29(1997) no.8, S.1147-1156
  9. Jimenez, V.O.R.: Nuevas perspectivas para la catalogacion : metadatos ver MARC (1999) 0.00 
    0.004787349 = product of:
  0.028724095 = sum of:
    0.028724095 = product of:
      0.08617228 = sum of:
        0.08617228 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08617228 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 5743, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5743)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    30. 3.2002 19:45:22
    Source
    Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.2, S.198-219
  10. Andresen, L.: Metadata in Denmark (2000) 0.00 
    0.0045135557 = product of:
  0.027081333 = sum of:
    0.027081333 = product of:
      0.081244 = sum of:
        0.081244 = weight(_text_:22 in 4899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081244 = score(doc=4899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4899, 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=4899)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    16. 7.2000 20:58:22
  11. MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications (2004) 0.00 
    0.0045135557 = product of:
  0.027081333 = sum of:
    0.027081333 = product of:
      0.081244 = sum of:
        0.081244 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081244 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2840, 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=2840)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1
  12. Granger, S.: Metadata and digital preservation : a plea for cross-interest collaboration (2000) 0.00 
    0.0039852113 = product of:
  0.023911266 = sum of:
    0.023911266 = product of:
      0.071733795 = sum of:
        0.071733795 = weight(_text_:29 in 4900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071733795 = score(doc=4900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 4900, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4900)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Vine. 2000, no.117, S.24-29
  13. Siripan, P.: Metadata and trends of cataloguing in Thai libraries (2000) 0.00 
    0.0039852113 = product of:
  0.023911266 = sum of:
    0.023911266 = product of:
      0.071733795 = sum of:
        0.071733795 = weight(_text_:29 in 6338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071733795 = score(doc=6338,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 6338, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6338)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 29(2000) no.2, S.33-35
  14. Moen, W.E.: ¬The metadata approach to accessing government information (2001) 0.00 
    0.0039493614 = product of:
  0.023696167 = sum of:
    0.023696167 = product of:
      0.0710885 = sum of:
        0.0710885 = weight(_text_:22 in 4407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0710885 = score(doc=4407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4407, 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=4407)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    28. 3.2002 9:22:34
  15. MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications (2004) 0.00 
    0.0039493614 = product of:
  0.023696167 = sum of:
    0.023696167 = product of:
      0.0710885 = sum of:
        0.0710885 = weight(_text_:22 in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0710885 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7196, 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=7196)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1
  16. MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications part 2 (2004) 0.00 
    0.0039493614 = product of:
  0.023696167 = sum of:
    0.023696167 = product of:
      0.0710885 = sum of:
        0.0710885 = weight(_text_:22 in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0710885 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2841, 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=2841)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2
  17. Turner, J.M.: ¬The organization of moving-image metadata : a research agenda (1997) 0.00 
    0.0034158952 = product of:
  0.02049537 = sum of:
    0.02049537 = product of:
      0.06148611 = sum of:
        0.06148611 = weight(_text_:29 in 47) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06148611 = score(doc=47,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 47, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=47)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    3. 1.1999 12:29:24
  18. Organizing Internet resources : metadata and the Web (1997) 0.00 
    0.0034158952 = product of:
  0.02049537 = sum of:
    0.02049537 = product of:
      0.06148611 = sum of:
        0.06148611 = weight(_text_:29 in 2562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06148611 = score(doc=2562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 2562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2562)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 24(1997) no.1, Oct./Nov., S.4-29
  19. Hengel-Dittrich, C.: Im Kern einig: Dublin Core auf dem Wege zum weltweiten Standard : 7. Dublin Core Workshop in Frankfurt am Main (1999) 0.00 
    0.0034158952 = product of:
  0.02049537 = sum of:
    0.02049537 = product of:
      0.06148611 = sum of:
        0.06148611 = weight(_text_:29 in 4226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06148611 = score(doc=4226,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 4226, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4226)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    26.12.1999 20:08:29
  20. Tennis, J.T.: 6th Annual Open Forum on Metadata Registries : Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, Jan 20-24, 2003 (2002) 0.00 
    0.0034158952 = product of:
  0.02049537 = sum of:
    0.02049537 = product of:
      0.06148611 = sum of:
        0.06148611 = weight(_text_:29 in 1856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06148611 = score(doc=1856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 1856, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1856)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 29(2002) nos.3/4, S.234-235

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 139
  • d 19
  • f 1
  • i 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 150
  • el 8
  • s 8
  • m 5
  • b 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications