Search (31 results, page 1 of 2)

0.028340552 = product of:
  0.11336221 = sum of:
    0.11336221 = weight(_text_:engineering in 953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11336221 = score(doc=953,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.47486886 = fieldWeight in 953, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=953)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

GAIS computer science bibliographies search is a WWW service providing a searchable interface on bibliographies related to computer science. It holds about 400.000 references, mirrored from the Informatics for Engineering and Science Department of the University of Karlsruhe, and allows full text searching through the search engine GAIS (Global Area Intelligent Search). Discusses its design and architecture

0.021255413 = product of:
  0.08502165 = sum of:
    0.08502165 = weight(_text_:engineering in 4284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08502165 = score(doc=4284,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.35615164 = fieldWeight in 4284, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4284)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Natural Language Processing (NLP) is an area of research and application that explores how computers can be used to understand and manipulate natural language text or speech to do useful things. NLP researchers aim to gather knowledge an how human beings understand and use language so that appropriate tools and techniques can be developed to make computer systems understand and manipulate natural languages to perform desired tasks. The foundations of NLP lie in a number of disciplines, namely, computer and information sciences, linguistics, mathematics, electrical and electronic engineering, artificial intelligence and robotics, and psychology. Applications of NLP include a number of fields of study, such as machine translation, natural language text processing and summarization, user interfaces, multilingual and cross-language information retrieval (CLIR), speech recognition, artificial intelligence, and expert systems. One important application area that is relatively new and has not been covered in previous ARIST chapters an NLP relates to the proliferation of the World Wide Web and digital libraries.

0.014170276 = product of:
  0.056681104 = sum of:
    0.056681104 = weight(_text_:engineering in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056681104 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.23743443 = fieldWeight in 4281, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4281)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

It is common knowledge that computer interfaces in different cultures vary. Interface designers present information in different languages, use different iconography to designate concepts, and employ different standards for dates, time, and numbers. These manifest differences beg the question of how easily an interface designed in one country can be used in and transferred to another country. Are the challenges involved in adaptation merely cosmetic or are they shaped by more profound forces? Do all cultures respond to interfaces in similar ways, or does culture itself shape user comprehension? If culture is a factor in explaining varied user reactions to comparable interfaces, what specific cultural dimensions are responsible for the divergences? Do differences reside mainly at the level of national cultures, or do they depend an other variables such as class, gender, age, education, and expertise with technology? In the face of a potentially large number of explanatory variables, how do we delimit a workable concept of culture and yet remain cognizant of other factors that might shape the results of culture and interface research? Questions such as these have been asked in the ergonomics community since the early 1970s, when the industrialization of developing countries created a need for more research an cultural differences (Honold, 1999), resulting in an increased interest in the universal applicability of ergonomic principles. This trend continued after the reunification of Germany and the emergence of market economies in Eastern Europe (Nielsen, 1990). In the mid-1990s, as markets outside the U.S. rapidly expanded, it became necessary to develop appropriate user interfaces for non-Western cultures in order to facilitate international cooperation. This fresh impetus for research led to the development of practical guidelines and a body of Gase studies and examples of possible solutions. Most recently we have seen attempts to provide a theoretical foundation for cross-cultural usability engineering and experimental comparison studies (Honold, 1999).

0.014170276 = product of:
  0.056681104 = sum of:
    0.056681104 = weight(_text_:engineering in 4283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056681104 = score(doc=4283,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.23743443 = fieldWeight in 4283, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4283)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Information retrieval - the retrieval, primarily, of documents or textual material - is fundamentally a linguistic process. At the very least we must describe what we want and match that description with descriptions of the information that is available to us. Furthermore, when we describe what we want, we must mean something by that description. This is a deceptively simple act, but such linguistic events have been the grist for philosophical analysis since Aristotle. Although there are complexities involved in referring to authors, document types, or other categories of information retrieval context, here I wish to focus an one of the most problematic activities in information retrieval: the description of the intellectual content of information items. And even though I take information retrieval to involve the description and retrieval of written text, what I say here is applicable to any information item whose intellectual content can be described for retrieval-books, documents, images, audio clips, video clips, scientific specimens, engineering schematics, and so forth. For convenience, though, I will refer only to the description and retrieval of documents. The description of intellectual content can go wrong in many obvious ways. We may describe what we want incorrectly; we may describe it correctly but in such general terms that its description is useless for retrieval; or we may describe what we want correctly, but misinterpret the descriptions of available information, and thereby match our description of what we want incorrectly. From a linguistic point of view, we can be misunderstood in the process of retrieval in many ways. Because the philosophy of language deals specifically with how we are understood and mis-understood, it should have some use for understanding the process of description in information retrieval. First, however, let us examine more closely the kinds of misunderstandings that can occur in information retrieval. We use language in searching for information in two principal ways. We use it to describe what we want and to discriminate what we want from other information that is available to us but that we do not want. Description and discrimination together articulate the goals of the information search process; they also delineate the two principal ways in which language can fail us in this process. Van Rijsbergen (1979) was the first to make this distinction, calling them "representation" and "discrimination.""

0.014170276 = product of:
  0.056681104 = sum of:
    0.056681104 = weight(_text_:engineering in 1479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056681104 = score(doc=1479,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.23743443 = fieldWeight in 1479, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1479)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Inhalt: General Classification, Colon Classification, Edition7, Philosophy, Conference, Literature Survey, Features, History. Countries and Areas , Theoru, Design of Classification, Classification Problems , Research in Classification, Trends in Classification, Depth Classification, Automatic Classification, Uses of Classification, Practical Classification, Application of Classification, Standards, Glossary.Teminology, classification and Reference Service, Classificationand Documentation, Classification and Communication, Classification and Retrieval, Comparison to Other Schemes, Canons, Isolates, Common Isolates , Space Isolates, Time Isolates, Special Isolates, Postulates, Fundamental Categories, Facet Formula, Optionl Facets, Rounds and Levels, Basic Subjects, Notation and Symbols, Array and Chanin, Devices, Mnemonics, Phase Relation, Systems and Specials, Book Number, Cooperative Calssification, Teaching of Classification, Classification of Specific Subjects, Book Science, Bibliography, Library and Information Science, Classification, Cataloguing, Mathematics, Cybernetics, Engineering, Computer, Chemistry, Crystallography, Technology. Food Technology, Corrosion, Parasitism, Geology , Agriculture, Zoology, Animal Husbandry, Medicine, Useful Arts, Military Science, Creative Arts, Aiterature, Sanskrit, Marathi, Tamil, Calssics, Linguistics, Philosophy, Ssocial Science, Geography, Maps, History , Political Science, Economics, Sociology, Law,

0.012398992 = product of:
  0.049595967 = sum of:
    0.049595967 = weight(_text_:engineering in 4244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049595967 = score(doc=4244,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.20775513 = fieldWeight in 4244, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4244)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Does information science have a theory of information? There seems to be a tendency within information science to seek a theory of information, but the search is apparently unproductive (Hjoerland, 1998; Saracevic, 1999). This review brings together work from inside and outside the field of information science, showing that other perspectives an information theory could be of assistance. Constructivist claims that emphasize the uniqueness of the individual experience of information, maintaining that there is no information independent of our social practices (Cornelius, 1996a), are also mentioned. Such a position would be echoed in a symbolic interactionist approach. Conventionally, the history of attempts to develop a theory of information date from the publication of Claude Shannon's work in 1948, and his joint publication of that work with an essay by Warren Weaver in 1949 (Shannon & Weaver, 1949/1963). Information science found itself alongside many other disciplines attempting to develop a theory of information (Machlup & Mansfield, 1983). From Weaver's essay stems the claim that the basic concepts of Shannon's mathematical theory of communication, which Shannon later referred to as a theory of information, can be applied in disciplines outside electrical engineering, even in the social sciences.

0.012040401 = product of:
  0.048161604 = sum of:
    0.048161604 = product of:
      0.09632321 = sum of:
        0.09632321 = weight(_text_:22 in 3281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09632321 = score(doc=3281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3281, 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=3281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:01:26

0.012040401 = product of:
  0.048161604 = sum of:
    0.048161604 = product of:
      0.09632321 = sum of:
        0.09632321 = weight(_text_:22 in 3962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09632321 = score(doc=3962,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3962, 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=3962)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

13. 7.2008 9:30:22

0.012040401 = product of:
  0.048161604 = sum of:
    0.048161604 = product of:
      0.09632321 = sum of:
        0.09632321 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09632321 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4368, 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=4368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:22:28

0.012040401 = product of:
  0.048161604 = sum of:
    0.048161604 = product of:
      0.09632321 = sum of:
        0.09632321 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09632321 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, 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=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.012040401 = product of:
  0.048161604 = sum of:
    0.048161604 = product of:
      0.09632321 = sum of:
        0.09632321 = weight(_text_:22 in 5341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09632321 = score(doc=5341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5341, 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=5341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

17.10.1996 14:22:33

0.012040401 = product of:
  0.048161604 = sum of:
    0.048161604 = product of:
      0.09632321 = sum of:
        0.09632321 = weight(_text_:22 in 334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09632321 = score(doc=334,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 334, 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=334)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 22(1987), S.109-145

0.012040401 = product of:
  0.048161604 = sum of:
    0.048161604 = product of:
      0.09632321 = sum of:
        0.09632321 = weight(_text_:22 in 335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09632321 = score(doc=335,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 335, 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=335)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 22(1987), S.41-77

0.012040401 = product of:
  0.048161604 = sum of:
    0.048161604 = product of:
      0.09632321 = sum of:
        0.09632321 = weight(_text_:22 in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09632321 = score(doc=337,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 337, 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=337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 22(1987), S.79-108

0.010627707 = product of:
  0.042510826 = sum of:
    0.042510826 = weight(_text_:engineering in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042510826 = score(doc=5079,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.17807582 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The concept of information as we use it in everyday English, in the sense of knowledge communicated, plays a central role in contemporary society. The development and widespread use of computer networks since the end of World War II, and the emergence of information science as a discipline in the 1950s, are evidence of this focus. Although knowledge and its communication are basic phenomena of every human society, it is the rise of information technology and its global impacts that characterize ours as an information society. It is commonplace to consider information as a basic condition for economic development together with capital, labor, and raw material; but what makes information especially significant at present is its digital nature. The impact of information technology an the natural and social sciences in particular has made this everyday notion a highly controversial concept. Claude Shannon's (1948) "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" is a landmark work, referring to the common use of information with its semantic and pragmatic dimensions, while at the same time redefining the concept within an engineering framework. The fact that the concept of knowledge communication has been designated by the word information seems, prima facie, a linguistic happenstance. For a science like information science (IS), it is of course important how fundamental terms are defined; and in IS, as in other fields, the question of how to define information is often raised. This chapter is an attempt to review the status of the concept of information in IS, with reference also to interdisciplinary trends. In scientific discourse, theoretical concepts are not true or false elements or glimpses of some element of reality; rather, they are constructions designed to do a job in the best possible way. Different conceptions of fundamental terms like information are thus more or less fruitful, depending an the theories (and in the end, the practical actions) they are expected to support. In the opening section, we discuss the problem of defining terms from the perspective of the philosophy of science. The history of a word provides us with anecdotes that are tangential to the concept itself. But in our case, the use of the word information points to a specific perspective from which the concept of knowledge communication has been defined. This perspective includes such characteristics as novelty and relevante; i.e., it refers to the process of knowledge transformation, and particularly to selection and interpretation within a specific context. The discussion leads to the questions of why and when this meaning was designated with the word information. We will explore this history, and we believe that our results may help readers better understand the complexity of the concept with regard to its scientific definitions.

0.010535351 = product of:
  0.042141404 = sum of:
    0.042141404 = product of:
      0.08428281 = sum of:
        0.08428281 = weight(_text_:22 in 1601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08428281 = score(doc=1601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1601, 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=1601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

27.12.2014 18:54:22

0.007525251 = product of:
  0.030101003 = sum of:
    0.030101003 = product of:
      0.060202006 = sum of:
        0.060202006 = weight(_text_:22 in 209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060202006 = score(doc=209,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 209, 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=209)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Reference services review. 22(1994) no.4, S.81-

0.0060202004 = product of:
  0.024080802 = sum of:
    0.024080802 = product of:
      0.048161604 = sum of:
        0.048161604 = weight(_text_:22 in 2193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048161604 = score(doc=2193,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2193, 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=2193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 14(1992) nos.3/4, S.5-22

0.0060202004 = product of:
  0.024080802 = sum of:
    0.024080802 = product of:
      0.048161604 = sum of:
        0.048161604 = weight(_text_:22 in 8460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048161604 = score(doc=8460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 8460, 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=8460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Reference services review. 22(1994) no.2, S.31-40

0.0060202004 = product of:
  0.024080802 = sum of:
    0.024080802 = product of:
      0.048161604 = sum of:
        0.048161604 = weight(_text_:22 in 4226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048161604 = score(doc=4226,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4226, 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=4226)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

13. 6.1996 19:22:20