Search (163 results, page 1 of 9)

0.033975184 = product of:
  0.08493796 = sum of:
    0.037703875 = weight(_text_:engineering in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037703875 = score(doc=4872,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21172935 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03940963 = queryNorm
        0.17807582 = fieldWeight in 4872, 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=4872)
    0.04723408 = weight(_text_:wissensmanagement in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04723408 = score(doc=4872,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23698223 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0133076 = idf(docFreq=293, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03940963 = queryNorm
        0.19931486 = fieldWeight in 4872, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0133076 = idf(docFreq=293, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4872)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

"1. Die Konferenz Vom 12. bis 15. September 2005 fand in Leganés (Madrid) die "International Conference an Dublin Core and Metadata Applications" mit dem Thema "Vocabularies in Practice" statt [DC2005]. Gastgeber war der Fachbereich Bibliothekswesen und Dokumentation der "Universidad Carlos III de Madrid" zusammen mit dem Institut "Agustin Millares" für Dokumentation und Wissensmanagement. Den 214 Teilnehmern aus 33 Ländern wurden 14 ausführliche und 18 Kurzpräsentationen geboten sowie zehn "Special Sessions" [DC2005-PAPERS]. Fünf Einführungsseminare zu Themen der Metadaten und maschinell verarbeitbarer Thesauri wurden abgehalten. Die Hauptreden der vier Konferenztage wurden von Thomas Baker (Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen), Ricardo Baeza (University of Chile), Johannes Keizer (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) und Eric Miller (World Wide Web Consortium) gehalten. Plenarvorträge wurden simultan ins Spanische übersetzt und mehrere Treffen wurden in französischer oder spanischer Sprache abgehalten. Die Dublin-Core-Konferenz ist auch das zentrale Ereignis des Jahres für die Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) als Organisation. Vor und nach der Konferenz tagten das DCMI Board of Trustees, ein Gremium aus Metadatenexperten und nationalen Vertretern ("Affiliates"); das "Usage Board", das den Standard inhaltlich verwaltet, und das "Advisory Board", das hauptsächlich aus Leitern von DCMI-Arbeitsgruppen besteht. Während der Konferenz haben sich vierzehn Arbeitsgruppen zu speziellen Fragen im Bereich Metadaten getroffen. 2. Von der Kernsemantik zum Modell "Zehn Jahre Dublin Core" war der Hintergrund für die Keynote-Präsehtation von Thomas Baker, DCMI Director of Specifications and Documentation. März 1995 fand in Dublin (Ohio) der Workshop statt, auf dem die Kernelemente erstmals entworfen wurden - Creator, Subject, Date, usw. - die der Initiative den Namen gegeben haben. Dieser "Dublin Core" wurde 1998 bei der Internet Engineering Task Force als Request for Comments (RFC 2413) publiziert, 2000 formal als Standard in Europa (CWA 13874/2000 bei CEN), 2001 in den USA (Z39.95 bei NISO) und 2003 international (ISO 15836/2003) anerkannt [DUBLINCORE]. Am Anfang wurde der Dublin Core als Datenformat konzipiert - d.h. als streng festgelegte Vorlage für digitale Karteikarten. Bereits früh wurden die Elemente jedoch als Vokabular aufgefasst, d.h. als Satz prinzipiell rekombinierbarer Elemente für Beschreibungen, die den Anforderungen spezifischer Anwendungsbereiche angepasst werden konnten - kurz, als Bausteine für Anwendungsprofile. Ausgehend von der vermeintlich simplen Aufgabe, Webseiten auf einfache Art zu beschreiben, hat sich ab 1997 in gegenseitiger Beeinflussung mit der sich entwickelnden Webtechnik von HTML bis hin zu XML und RDF ein allgemeines Modell für Metadaten herauskristallisiert.

0.017595144 = product of:
  0.08797572 = sum of:
    0.08797572 = weight(_text_:engineering in 702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08797572 = score(doc=702,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21172935 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03940963 = queryNorm
        0.41551027 = fieldWeight in 702, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=702)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Information professions identified the need for a set of standard metadata almost as soon as the WWW became a reality. Several initiatives have already identified the types of bibliographic information that would be necessary to describe and locate an electronic publication. The descriptors identified in the OCLC/NCSA Dublin Core are combined with those assembled by the Coalition of Networked Information and the Internet Engineering Task force to produce a list of electronic citation elements. Advocates embedding these citation elements within electrinic documents through the use of HTML<META>tags and other markup techniques. There is also a call to cataloguing librarians to contribute their expertise in information resources management to document being prepared for the WWW in order to influence the quality of electronic publication from the insides

0.01508155 = product of:
  0.07540775 = sum of:
    0.07540775 = weight(_text_:engineering in 3772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07540775 = score(doc=3772,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21172935 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03940963 = queryNorm
        0.35615164 = fieldWeight in 3772, 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=3772)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This entry is a personal remembrance of the emergence and evolution of the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative from its inception in a 1994 invitational workshop to its current state as an international open standards community. It describes the context of resource description in the early days of the World Wide Web, and discusses both social and technical engineering brought to bear on its development. Notable in this development is the international character of the workshop and conference series, and the diverse spectrum of expertise from many countries that contributed to the effort. The Dublin Core began as a consensus-driven community that elaborated a set of resource description principles that served a broad spectrum of users and applications. The result has been an architecture for metadata that informs most Web-based resource description efforts. Equally important, the Dublin Core has become the leading community of expertise, practice, and discovery that continues to explore the borders between the ideal and the practical in the description of digital information assets.

0.01508155 = product of:
  0.07540775 = sum of:
    0.07540775 = weight(_text_:engineering in 3274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07540775 = score(doc=3274,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21172935 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03940963 = queryNorm
        0.35615164 = fieldWeight in 3274, 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=3274)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

The papers are organized in several sessions and tracks: general track on ontology evolution, engineering, and frameworks, semantic Web and metadata extraction, modelling, interoperability and exploratory search, data analysis, reuse and visualization; track on digital libraries, information retrieval, linked and social data; track on metadata and semantics for open repositories, research information systems and data infrastructure; track on metadata and semantics for agriculture, food and environment; track on metadata and semantics for cultural collections and applications; track on European and national projects.

0.014019611 = product of:
  0.03504903 = sum of:
    0.031489387 = weight(_text_:wissensmanagement in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031489387 = score(doc=2874,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23698223 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0133076 = idf(docFreq=293, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03940963 = queryNorm
        0.13287657 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0133076 = idf(docFreq=293, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
    0.0035596406 = product of:
      0.010678922 = sum of:
        0.010678922 = weight(_text_:22 in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010678922 = score(doc=2874,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13800581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

"Libraries: Tools for Education and Development" war das Motto der 70. IFLA-Generalkonferenz, dem Weltkongress Bibliothek und Information, der vom 22.-27. August 2004 in Buenos Aires, Argentinien, und damit erstmals in Lateinamerika stattfand. Rund 3.000 Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmer, davon ein Drittel aus spanischsprachigen Ländern, allein 600 aus Argentinien, besuchten die von der IFLA und dem nationalen Organisationskomitee gut organisierte Tagung mit mehr als 200 Sitzungen und Veranstaltungen. Aus Deutschland waren laut Teilnehmerverzeichnis leider nur 45 Kolleginnen und Kollegen angereist, womit ihre Zahl wieder auf das Niveau von Boston gesunken ist. Erfreulicherweise gab es nunmehr bereits im dritten Jahr eine deutschsprachige Ausgabe des IFLA-Express. Auch in diesem Jahr soll hier über die Veranstaltungen der Division IV Bibliographic Control berichtet werden. Die Arbeit der Division mit ihren Sektionen Bibliography, Cataloguing, Classification and Indexing sowie der neuen Sektion Knowledge Management bildet einen der Schwerpunkte der IFLA-Arbeit, die dabei erzielten konkreten Ergebnisse und Empfehlungen haben maßgeblichen Einfluss auf die tägliche Arbeit der Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. Erstmals wird auch ausführlich über die Arbeit der Core Activities ICABS und UNIMARC und der Information Technology Section berichtet.

Content

Knowledge Management Section (Sektion Wissensmanagement) Ziel der neuen Sektion ist es, die Entwicklung und Implementierung des Wissensmanagements in Bibliotheken und Informationszentren zu fördern. Die Sektion will dafür eine internationale Plattform für die professionelle Kommunikation bieten und damit das Thema bekannter und allgemein verständlicher machen. Auf diese Weise soll seine Bedeutung auch für Bibliotheken und die mit ihm arbeitenden Einrichtungen herausgestellt werden. IFLA-CDNL Alliance for Bibliographic Standards (ICABS) Ein Jahr nach ihrer Gründung in Berlin hat die IFLA Core Activity "IFLA-CDNL Alliance for Bibliographic Standards (ICABS)" in Buenos Aires zum ersten Mal das Spektrum ihrer Arbeitsfelder einem großen Fachpublikum vorgestellt. Die IFLA Core Activity UNIMARC, einer der Partner der Allianz, hatte am Donnerstagvormittag zu einer Veranstaltung unter dem Titel "The holdings record as a bibliographic control tool" geladen. Am Nachmittag des selben Tages fand unter dem Titel "The new IFLA-CDNL Alliance for Bibliographic Standards - umbrella for multifaceted activities: strategies and practical ways to improve international coordination" die umfassende ICABS-Veranstaltung statt, die von der Generaldirektorin Der Deutschen Bibliothek, Dr. Elisabeth Niggemann, moderiert wurde. Nachdem die Vorsitzende des Advisory Board in ihrem Vortrag auf die Entstehungsgeschichte der Allianz eingegangen war, gab sie einen kurzen Oberblick über die Organisation und die Arbeit von ICABS als Dach der vielfältigen Aktivitäten im Bereich bibliographischer Standards. Vertreter aller in ICABS zusammengeschlossener Bibliotheken stellten im Anschluss daran ihre Arbeitsbereiche und -ergebnisse vor.

0.01256796 = product of:
  0.0628398 = sum of:
    0.0628398 = weight(_text_:engineering in 2195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0628398 = score(doc=2195,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21172935 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03940963 = queryNorm
        0.29679304 = fieldWeight in 2195, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2195)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Riley's survey (2010) of metadata standards for cultural heritage collections represents a rare attempt to classify such standards, in this case according to their domain, community, function and purpose. This paper reports on a survey of metadata standards with particular functions, i.e. those of schemas and vocabularies, but that have been published online for any domain or community (and not just those of the cultural heritage sector). In total, 53 schemas and 328 vocabularies were identified as within scope, and were classified according to their subject coverage and the type of warrant used in their reported development, i.e. resource, expert or user warrant, or a combination of these types. There was found to be a general correlation between the coverage of the schemas and vocabularies. Areas of underrepresentation would appear to be the humanities and the fine arts, and, in the case of schemas, also law, engineering, manufacturing and sport. Schemas would appear to be constructed more by consulting experts and considering endusers' search behaviour; vocabularies, on the other hand, are developed more by considering the information resources themselves, or by combining a range of methods.

0.0114425495 = product of:
  0.057212748 = sum of:
    0.057212748 = product of:
      0.08581912 = sum of:
        0.04310343 = weight(_text_:29 in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04310343 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13863076 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = 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)
        0.042715687 = weight(_text_:22 in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042715687 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13800581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

29. 5.2015 19:09:22

0.010054368 = product of:
  0.05027184 = sum of:
    0.05027184 = weight(_text_:engineering in 5134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05027184 = score(doc=5134,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21172935 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03940963 = queryNorm
        0.23743443 = fieldWeight in 5134, 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=5134)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Metadata research has emerged as a discipline cross-cutting many domains, focused on the provision of distributed descriptions (often called annotations) to Web resources or applications. Such associated descriptions are supposed to serve as a foundation for advanced services in many application areas, including search and location, personalization, federation of repositories and automated delivery of information. Indeed, the Semantic Web is in itself a concrete technological framework for ontology-based metadata. For example, Web-based social networking requires metadata describing people and their interrelations, and large databases with biological information use complex and detailed metadata schemas for more precise and informed search strategies. There is a wide diversity in the languages and idioms used for providing meta-descriptions, from simple structured text in metadata schemas to formal annotations using ontologies, and the technologies for storing, sharing and exploiting meta-descriptions are also diverse and evolve rapidly. In addition, there is a proliferation of schemas and standards related to metadata, resulting in a complex and moving technological landscape - hence, the need for specialized knowledge and skills in this area. The Handbook of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies is intended as an authoritative reference for students, practitioners and researchers, serving as a roadmap for the variety of metadata schemas and ontologies available in a number of key domain areas, including culture, biology, education, healthcare, engineering and library science.

0.010012231 = product of:
  0.05006115 = sum of:
    0.05006115 = product of:
      0.07509173 = sum of:
        0.037715502 = weight(_text_:29 in 2673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037715502 = score(doc=2673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13863076 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = 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)
        0.037376225 = weight(_text_:22 in 2673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037376225 = score(doc=2673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13800581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06

Source

Computer networks and ISDN systems. 29(1997) no.8, S.1147-1156

0.00628398 = product of:
  0.0314199 = sum of:
    0.0314199 = weight(_text_:engineering in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0314199 = score(doc=1216,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21172935 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03940963 = queryNorm
        0.14839652 = fieldWeight in 1216, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1216)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

At the time of writing, the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) has clarified its commitment to the simple approach. The qualification principles announced in early 2000 support the use of DC elements as the basis for simple statements about resources, rather than as the foundation for more descriptive clauses. This paper takes a critical look at some of the issues that led up to this renewed commitment to simplicity. We argue that: * There remains a compelling need for simple, "pidgin" metadata. From a technical and economic perspective, document-centric metadata, where simple string values are associated with a finite set of properties, is most appropriate for generic, cross-domain discovery queries in the Internet Commons. Such metadata is not necessarily fixed in physical records, but may be projected algorithmically from more complex metadata or from content itself. * The Dublin Core, while far from perfect from an engineering perspective, is an acceptable standard for such simple metadata. Agreements in the global information space are as much social as technical, and the process by which the Dublin Core has been developed, involving a broad cross-section of international participants, is a model for such "socially developed" standards. * Efforts to introduce complexity into Dublin Core are misguided. Complex descriptions may be necessary for some Web resources and for some purposes, such as administration, preservation, and reference linking. However, complex descriptions require more expressive data models that differentiate between agents, documents, contexts, events, and the like. An attempt to intermix simplicity and complexity, and the data models most appropriate for them, defeats the equally noble goals of cross-domain description and extensive resource description. * The principle of modularity suggests that metadata formats tailored for simplicity be used alongside others tailored for complexity.

0.0060409107 = product of:
  0.030204553 = sum of:
    0.030204553 = product of:
      0.090613656 = sum of:
        0.090613656 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.090613656 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13800581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

30. 3.2002 19:45:22

Source

Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.2, S.198-219

0.005695425 = product of:
  0.028477125 = sum of:
    0.028477125 = product of:
      0.085431375 = sum of:
        0.085431375 = weight(_text_:22 in 4899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085431375 = score(doc=4899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13800581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

16. 7.2000 20:58:22

0.005695425 = product of:
  0.028477125 = sum of:
    0.028477125 = product of:
      0.085431375 = sum of:
        0.085431375 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085431375 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13800581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

0.0050287335 = product of:
  0.025143668 = sum of:
    0.025143668 = product of:
      0.075431004 = sum of:
        0.075431004 = weight(_text_:29 in 4900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.075431004 = score(doc=4900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13863076 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Vine. 2000, no.117, S.24-29

0.0050287335 = product of:
  0.025143668 = sum of:
    0.025143668 = product of:
      0.075431004 = sum of:
        0.075431004 = weight(_text_:29 in 6338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.075431004 = score(doc=6338,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13863076 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 29(2000) no.2, S.33-35

0.004983497 = product of:
  0.024917483 = sum of:
    0.024917483 = product of:
      0.07475245 = sum of:
        0.07475245 = weight(_text_:22 in 4407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07475245 = score(doc=4407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13800581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

28. 3.2002 9:22:34

0.004983497 = product of:
  0.024917483 = sum of:
    0.024917483 = product of:
      0.07475245 = sum of:
        0.07475245 = weight(_text_:22 in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07475245 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13800581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

0.004983497 = product of:
  0.024917483 = sum of:
    0.024917483 = product of:
      0.07475245 = sum of:
        0.07475245 = weight(_text_:22 in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07475245 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13800581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2

0.0043103434 = product of:
  0.021551717 = sum of:
    0.021551717 = product of:
      0.06465515 = sum of:
        0.06465515 = weight(_text_:29 in 47) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06465515 = score(doc=47,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13863076 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

3. 1.1999 12:29:24

0.0043103434 = product of:
  0.021551717 = sum of:
    0.021551717 = product of:
      0.06465515 = sum of:
        0.06465515 = weight(_text_:29 in 2562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06465515 = score(doc=2562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13863076 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 24(1997) no.1, Oct./Nov., S.4-29