Search (39 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  1. Mehler, A.; Waltinger, U.: Automatic enrichment of metadata (2009) 0.10 
    0.10096384 = product of:
  0.16827306 = sum of:
    0.03743556 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03743556 = score(doc=4840,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 4840, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4840)
    0.100025974 = weight(_text_:semantic in 4840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100025974 = score(doc=4840,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.51973253 = fieldWeight in 4840, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4840)
    0.030811511 = product of:
      0.061623022 = sum of:
        0.061623022 = weight(_text_:web in 4840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061623022 = score(doc=4840,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 4840, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    In this talk we present a retrieval model based on social ontologies. More specifically, we utilize the Wikipedia category system in order to perform semantic searches. That is, textual input is used to build queries by means of which documents are retrieved which do not necessarily contain any query term but are semantically related to the input text by virtue of their content. We present a desktop which utilizes this search facility in a web-based environment - the so called eHumanities Desktop.
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  2. Broughton, V.: Automatic metadata generation : Digital resource description without human intervention (2007) 0.10 
    0.09868413 = product of:
  0.24671033 = sum of:
    0.10609356 = weight(_text_:semantic in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10609356 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.5512596 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
    0.14061676 = sum of:
      0.06536108 = weight(_text_:web in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06536108 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04628742 = queryNorm
          0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
      0.07525568 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07525568 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04628742 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 9.2007 15:41:14
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  3. Miller, S.: Introduction to ontology concepts and terminology : DC-2013 Tutorial, September 2, 2013. (2013) 0.05 
    0.052334994 = product of:
  0.13083749 = sum of:
    0.100025974 = weight(_text_:semantic in 1075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100025974 = score(doc=1075,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.51973253 = fieldWeight in 1075, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1075)
    0.030811511 = product of:
      0.061623022 = sum of:
        0.061623022 = weight(_text_:web in 1075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061623022 = score(doc=1075,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 1075, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1075)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    Tutorial topics and outline 1. Tutorial Background Overview The Semantic Web, Linked Data, and the Resource Description Framework 2. Ontology Basics and RDFS Tutorial Semantic modeling, domain ontologies, and RDF Vocabulary Description Language (RDFS) concepts and terminology Examples: domain ontologies, models, and schemas Exercises 3. OWL Overview Tutorial Web Ontology Language (OWL): selected concepts and terminology Exercises
  4. Heery, R.; Wagner, H.: ¬A metadata registry for the Semantic Web (2002) 0.04 
    0.041756954 = product of:
  0.10439238 = sum of:
    0.0757969 = weight(_text_:semantic in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0757969 = score(doc=1210,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.39383888 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
    0.028595474 = product of:
      0.057190947 = sum of:
        0.057190947 = weight(_text_:web in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057190947 = score(doc=1210,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.37859887 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The Semantic Web activity is a W3C project whose goal is to enable a 'cooperative' Web where machines and humans can exchange electronic content that has clear-cut, unambiguous meaning. This vision is based on the automated sharing of metadata terms across Web applications. The declaration of schemas in metadata registries advance this vision by providing a common approach for the discovery, understanding, and exchange of semantics. However, many of the issues regarding registries are not clear, and ideas vary regarding their scope and purpose. Additionally, registry issues are often difficult to describe and comprehend without a working example. This article will explore the role of metadata registries and will describe three prototypes, written by the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. The article will outline how the prototypes are being used to demonstrate and evaluate application scope, functional requirements, and technology solutions for metadata registries. Metadata schema registries are, in effect, databases of schemas that can trace an historical line back to shared data dictionaries and the registration process encouraged by the ISO/IEC 11179 community. New impetus for the development of registries has come with the development activities surrounding creation of the Semantic Web. The motivation for establishing registries arises from domain and standardization communities, and from the knowledge management community. Examples of current registry activity include:
    * Agencies maintaining directories of data elements in a domain area in accordance with ISO/IEC 11179 (This standard specifies good practice for data element definition as well as the registration process. Example implementations are the National Health Information Knowledgebase hosted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the Environmental Data Registry hosted by the US Environmental Protection Agency.); * The xml.org directory of the Extended Markup Language (XML) document specifications facilitating re-use of Document Type Definition (DTD), hosted by the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS); * The MetaForm database of Dublin Core usage and mappings maintained at the State and University Library in Goettingen; * The Semantic Web Agreement Group Dictionary, a database of terms for the Semantic Web that can be referred to by humans and software agents; * LEXML, a multi-lingual and multi-jurisdictional RDF Dictionary for the legal world; * The SCHEMAS registry maintained by the European Commission funded SCHEMAS project, which indexes several metadata element sets as well as a large number of activity reports describing metadata related activities and initiatives. Metadata registries essentially provide an index of terms. Given the distributed nature of the Web, there are a number of ways this can be accomplished. For example, the registry could link to terms and definitions in schemas published by implementers and stored locally by the schema maintainer. Alternatively, the registry might harvest various metadata schemas from their maintainers. Registries provide 'added value' to users by indexing schemas relevant to a particular 'domain' or 'community of use' and by simplifying the navigation of terms by enabling multiple schemas to be accessed from one view. An important benefit of this approach is an increase in the reuse of existing terms, rather than users having to reinvent them. Merging schemas to one view leads to harmonization between applications and helps avoid duplication of effort. Additionally, the establishment of registries to index terms actively being used in local implementations facilitates the metadata standards activity by providing implementation experience transferable to the standards-making process.
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  5. Dunsire, G.; Willer, M.: Initiatives to make standard library metadata models and structures available to the Semantic Web (2010) 0.04 
    0.041374445 = product of:
  0.10343611 = sum of:
    0.079077475 = weight(_text_:semantic in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079077475 = score(doc=3965,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.41088465 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
    0.02435864 = product of:
      0.04871728 = sum of:
        0.04871728 = weight(_text_:web in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04871728 = score(doc=3965,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.32250395 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This paper describes recent initiatives to make standard library metadata models and structures available to the Semantic Web, including IFLA standards such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), and International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) along with the infrastructure that supports them. The FRBR Review Group is currently developing representations of FRAD and the entityrelationship model of FRBR in resource description framework (RDF) applications, using a combination of RDF, RDF Schema (RDFS), Simple Knowledge Organisation System (SKOS) and Web Ontology Language (OWL), cross-relating both models where appropriate. The ISBD/XML Task Group is investigating the representation of ISBD in RDF. The IFLA Namespaces project is developing an administrative and technical infrastructure to support such initiatives and encourage uptake of standards by other agencies. The paper describes similar initiatives with related external standards such as RDA - resource description and access, REICAT (the new Italian cataloguing rules) and CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM). The DCMI RDA Task Group is working with the Joint Steering Committee for RDA to develop Semantic Web representations of RDA structural elements, which are aligned with FRBR and FRAD, and controlled metadata content vocabularies. REICAT is also based on FRBR, and an object-oriented version of FRBR has been integrated with CRM, which itself has an RDF representation. CRM was initially based on the metadata needs of the museum community, and is now seeking extension to the archives community with the eventual aim of developing a model common to the main cultural information domains of archives, libraries and museums. The Vocabulary Mapping Framework (VMF) project has developed a Semantic Web tool to automatically generate mappings between metadata models from the information communities, including publishers. The tool is based on several standards, including CRM, FRAD, FRBR, MARC21 and RDA.
    The paper discusses the importance of these initiatives in releasing as linked data the very large quantities of rich, professionally-generated metadata stored in formats based on these standards, such as UNIMARC and MARC21, addressing such issues as critical mass for semantic and statistical inferencing, integration with user- and machine-generated metadata, and authenticity, veracity and trust. The paper also discusses related initiatives to release controlled vocabularies, including the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), ISBD, Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF), Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), Rameau (French subject headings), Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), and the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF) as linked data. Finally, the paper discusses the potential collective impact of these initiatives on metadata workflows and management systems.
  6. Frodl, C.; Gros, A.; Rühle, S.: Übersetzung des Singapore Framework für Dublin-Core-Anwendungsprofile (2009) 0.04 
    0.03553919 = product of:
  0.08884798 = sum of:
    0.06188791 = weight(_text_:semantic in 3229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06188791 = score(doc=3229,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.32156807 = fieldWeight in 3229, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3229)
    0.026960073 = product of:
      0.053920146 = sum of:
        0.053920146 = weight(_text_:web in 3229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053920146 = score(doc=3229,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 3229, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Das Singapore Framework für Dublin-Core-Anwendungsprofile nennt die Rahmenbedingungen um Metadatenanwendungen möglichst interoperabel zu gestalten und so zu dokumentieren, dass sie nachnutzbar sind. Es definiert die Komponenten, die erforderlich und hilfreich sind, um ein Anwendungsprofil zu dokumentieren und es beschreibt, wie sich diese dokumentarischen Standards gegenüber Standard-Domain-Modellen und den Semantic-Web-Standards verhalten. Das Singapore Framework ist die Grundlage für die Beurteilung von Anwendungsprofilen in Hinblick auf Vollständigkeit der Dokumentation und auf Übereinstimmung mit den Prinzipien der Web-Architektur. Dieses Dokument bietet eine kurze Übersicht über das Singapore Framework. Weitere Dokumente, die als Anleitung für die Erstellung der erforderlichen Dokumentation dienen, sind in Planung.
  7. Bohne-Lang, A.: Semantische Metadaten für den Webauftritt einer Bibliothek (2016) 0.03 
    0.03270937 = product of:
  0.08177343 = sum of:
    0.062516235 = weight(_text_:semantic in 3337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062516235 = score(doc=3337,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.32483283 = fieldWeight in 3337, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3337)
    0.019257195 = product of:
      0.03851439 = sum of:
        0.03851439 = weight(_text_:web in 3337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03851439 = score(doc=3337,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 3337, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Das Semantic Web ist schon seit über 10 Jahren viel beachtet und hat mit der Verfügbarkeit von Resource Description Framework (RDF) und den entsprechenden Ontologien einen großen Sprung in die Praxis gemacht. Vertreter kleiner Bibliotheken und Bibliothekare mit geringer Technik-Affinität stehen aber im Alltag vor großen Hürden, z.B. bei der Frage, wie man diese Technik konkret in den eigenen Webauftritt einbinden kann: man kommt sich vor wie Don Quijote, der versucht die Windmühlen zu bezwingen. RDF mit seinen Ontologien ist fast unverständlich komplex für Nicht-Informatiker und somit für den praktischen Einsatz auf Bibliotheksseiten in der Breite nicht direkt zu gebrauchen. Mit Schema.org wurde ursprünglich von den drei größten Suchmaschinen der Welt Google, Bing und Yahoo eine einfach und effektive semantische Beschreibung von Entitäten entwickelt. Aktuell wird Schema.org durch Google, Microsoft, Yahoo und Yandex weiter gesponsert und von vielen weiteren Suchmaschinen verstanden. Vor diesem Hintergrund hat die Bibliothek der Medizinischen Fakultät Mannheim auf ihrer Homepage (http://www.umm.uni-heidelberg.de/bibl/) verschiedene maschinenlesbare semantische Metadaten eingebettet. Sehr interessant und zukunftsweisend ist die neueste Entwicklung von Schema.org, bei der man eine 'Library' (https://schema.org/Library) mit Öffnungszeiten und vielem mehr modellieren kann. Ferner haben wir noch semantische Metadaten im Open Graph- und Dublin Core-Format eingebettet, um alte Standards und Facebook-konforme Informationen maschinenlesbar zur Verfügung zu stellen.
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  8. Söhler, M.: Schluss mit Schema F (2011) 0.03 
    0.029748652 = product of:
  0.07437163 = sum of:
    0.050012987 = weight(_text_:semantic in 4439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050012987 = score(doc=4439,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.25986627 = fieldWeight in 4439, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4439)
    0.02435864 = product of:
      0.04871728 = sum of:
        0.04871728 = weight(_text_:web in 4439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04871728 = score(doc=4439,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.32250395 = fieldWeight in 4439, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4439)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Mit Schema.org und dem semantischen Web sollen Suchmaschinen verstehen lernen
    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.
  9. Edmunds, J.: Roadmap to nowhere : BIBFLOW, BIBFRAME, and linked data for libraries (2017) 0.03 
    0.027754819 = product of:
  0.06938705 = sum of:
    0.05304678 = weight(_text_:semantic in 3523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05304678 = score(doc=3523,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.2756298 = fieldWeight in 3523, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3523)
    0.01634027 = product of:
      0.03268054 = sum of:
        0.03268054 = weight(_text_:web in 3523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03268054 = score(doc=3523,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3523, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3523)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    On December 12, 2016, Carl Stahmer and MacKenzie Smith presented at the CNI Members Fall Meeting about the BIBFLOW project, self-described on Twitter as "a two-year project of the UC Davis University Library and Zepheira investigating the future of library technical services." In her opening remarks, Ms. Smith, University Librarian at UC Davis, stated that one of the goals of the project was to devise a roadmap "to get from where we are today, which is kind of the 1970s with a little lipstick on it, to 2020, which is where we're going to be very soon." The notion that where libraries are today is somehow behind the times is one of the commonly heard rationales behind a move to linked data. Stated more precisely: - Libraries devote considerable time and resources to producing high-quality bibliographic metadata - This metadata is stored in unconnected silos - This metadata is in a format (MARC) that is incompatible with technologies of the emerging Semantic Web - The visibility of library metadata is diminished as a result of the two points above Are these assertions true? If yes, is linked data the solution?
  10. Hardesty, J.L.; Young, J.B.: ¬The semantics of metadata : Avalon Media System and the move to RDF (2017) 0.03 
    0.027754819 = product of:
  0.06938705 = sum of:
    0.05304678 = weight(_text_:semantic in 3896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05304678 = score(doc=3896,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.2756298 = fieldWeight in 3896, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3896)
    0.01634027 = product of:
      0.03268054 = sum of:
        0.03268054 = weight(_text_:web in 3896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03268054 = score(doc=3896,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3896, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3896)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The Avalon Media System (Avalon) provides access and management for digital audio and video collections in libraries and archives. The open source project is led by the libraries of Indiana University Bloomington and Northwestern University and is funded in part by grants from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Institute of Museum and Library Services. Avalon is based on the Samvera Community (formerly Hydra Project) software stack and uses Fedora as the digital repository back end. The Avalon project team is in the process of migrating digital repositories from Fedora 3 to Fedora 4 and incorporating metadata statements using the Resource Description Framework (RDF) instead of XML files accompanying the digital objects in the repository. The Avalon team has worked on the migration path for technical metadata and is now working on the migration paths for structural metadata (PCDM) and descriptive metadata (from MODS XML to RDF). This paper covers the decisions made to begin using RDF for software development and offers a window into how Semantic Web technology functions in the real world.
  11. Wallis, R.; Isaac, A.; Charles, V.; Manguinhas, H.: Recommendations for the application of Schema.org to aggregated cultural heritage metadata to increase relevance and visibility to search engines : the case of Europeana (2017) 0.03 
    0.02538514 = product of:
  0.063462846 = sum of:
    0.04420565 = weight(_text_:semantic in 3372) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04420565 = score(doc=3372,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.22969149 = fieldWeight in 3372, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3372)
    0.019257195 = product of:
      0.03851439 = sum of:
        0.03851439 = weight(_text_:web in 3372) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03851439 = score(doc=3372,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 3372, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3372)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Europeana provides access to more than 54 million cultural heritage objects through its portal Europeana Collections. It is crucial for Europeana to be recognized by search engines as a trusted authoritative repository of cultural heritage objects. Indeed, even though its portal is the main entry point, most Europeana users come to it via search engines. Europeana Collections is fuelled by metadata describing cultural objects, represented in the Europeana Data Model (EDM). This paper presents the research and consequent recommendations for publishing Europeana metadata using the Schema.org vocabulary and best practices. Schema.org html embedded metadata to be consumed by search engines to power rich services (such as Google Knowledge Graph). Schema.org is an open and widely adopted initiative (used by over 12 million domains) backed by Google, Bing, Yahoo!, and Yandex, for sharing metadata across the web It underpins the emergence of new web techniques, such as so called Semantic SEO. Our research addressed the representation of the embedded metadata as part of the Europeana HTML pages and sitemaps so that the re-use of this data can be optimized. The practical objective of our work is to produce a Schema.org representation of Europeana resources described in EDM, being the richest as possible and tailored to Europeana's realities and user needs as well the search engines and their users.
  12. Baker, T.: Languages for Dublin Core (1998) 0.03 
    0.025251333 = product of:
  0.06312833 = sum of:
    0.053596504 = weight(_text_:semantic in 1257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053596504 = score(doc=1257,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.27848613 = fieldWeight in 1257, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1257)
    0.009531826 = product of:
      0.019063652 = sum of:
        0.019063652 = weight(_text_:web in 1257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019063652 = score(doc=1257,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.12619963 = fieldWeight in 1257, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1257)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Over the past three years, the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative has achieved a broad international consensus on the semantics of a simple element set for describing electronic resources. Since the first workshop in March 1995, which was reported in the very first issue of D-Lib Magazine, Dublin Core has been the topic of perhaps a dozen articles here. Originally intended to be simple and intuitive enough for authors to tag Web pages without special training, Dublin Core is being adapted now for more specialized uses, from government information and legal deposit to museum informatics and electronic commerce. To meet such specialized requirements, Dublin Core can be customized with additional elements or qualifiers. However, these refinements can compromise interoperability across applications. There are tradeoffs between using specific terms that precisely meet local needs versus general terms that are understood more widely. We can better understand this inevitable tension between simplicity and complexity if we recognize that metadata is a form of human language. With Dublin Core, as with a natural language, people are inclined to stretch definitions, make general terms more specific, specific terms more general, misunderstand intended meanings, and coin new terms. One goal of this paper, therefore, will be to examine the experience of some related ways to seek semantic interoperability through simplicity: planned languages, interlingua constructs, and pidgins. The problem of semantic interoperability is compounded when we consider Dublin Core in translation. All of the workshops, documents, mailing lists, user guides, and working group outputs of the Dublin Core Initiative have been in English. But in many countries and for many applications, people need a metadata standard in their own language. In principle, the broad elements of Dublin Core can be defined equally well in Bulgarian or Hindi. Since Dublin Core is a controlled standard, however, any parallel definitions need to be kept in sync as the standard evolves. Another goal of the paper, then, will be to define the conceptual and organizational problem of maintaining a metadata standard in multiple languages. In addition to a name and definition, which are meant for human consumption, each Dublin Core element has a label, or indexing token, meant for harvesting by search engines. For practical reasons, these machine-readable tokens are English-looking strings such as Creator and Subject (just as HTML tags are called HEAD, BODY, or TITLE). These tokens, which are shared by Dublin Cores in every language, ensure that metadata fields created in any particular language are indexed together across repositories. As symbols of underlying universal semantics, these tokens form the basis of semantic interoperability among the multiple Dublin Cores. As long as we limit ourselves to sharing these indexing tokens among exact translations of a simple set of fifteen broad elements, the definitions of which fit easily onto two pages, the problem of Dublin Core in multiple languages is straightforward. But nothing having to do with human language is ever so simple. Just as speakers of various languages must learn the language of Dublin Core in their own tongues, we must find the right words to talk about a metadata language that is expressable in many discipline-specific jargons and natural languages and that inevitably will evolve and change over time.
  13. Söhler, M.: "Dumm wie Google" war gestern : semantische Suche im Netz (2011) 0.03 
    0.025130007 = product of:
  0.06282502 = sum of:
    0.043761365 = weight(_text_:semantic in 4440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043761365 = score(doc=4440,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.22738299 = fieldWeight in 4440, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4440)
    0.019063652 = product of:
      0.038127303 = sum of:
        0.038127303 = weight(_text_:web in 4440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038127303 = score(doc=4440,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 4440, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4440)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    - Neue Standards 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. "Damit wollen Google, Bing und Yahoo! dem Info-Chaos im WWW den Garaus machen", schreibt André Vatter im Blog ZBW Mediatalk. Inhalte von Websites sollen mit einem speziellen, aber einheitlichen Vokabular für die Crawler der Suchmaschinen gekennzeichnet und aufbereitet werden. Indem Schlagworte, so genannte Tags, in den Code von Websites eingebettet werden, sind Suchmachinen nicht mehr so sehr auf die Analyse der natürlichen Sprache angewiesen, um Texte inhaltlich zu erfassen. Im Blog 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."
  14. Hunter, J.: MetaNet - a metadata term thesaurus to enable semantic interoperability between metadata domains (2001) 0.02 
    0.01768226 = product of:
  0.0884113 = sum of:
    0.0884113 = weight(_text_:semantic in 6471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0884113 = score(doc=6471,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.45938298 = fieldWeight in 6471, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6471)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Metadata interoperability is a fundamental requirement for access to information within networked knowledge organization systems. The Harmony international digital library project [1] has developed a common underlying data model (the ABC model) to enable the scalable mapping of metadata descriptions across domains and media types. The ABC model [2] provides a set of basic building blocks for metadata modeling and recognizes the importance of 'events' to describe unambiguously metadata for objects with a complex history. To test and evaluate the interoperability capabilities of this model, we applied it to some real multimedia examples and analysed the results of mapping from the ABC model to various different metadata domains using XSLT [3]. This work revealed serious limitations in the ability of XSLT to support flexible dynamic semantic mapping. To overcome this, we developed MetaNet [4], a metadata term thesaurus which provides the additional semantic knowledge that is non-existent within declarative XML-encoded metadata descriptions. This paper describes MetaNet, its RDF Schema [5] representation and a hybrid mapping approach which combines the structural and syntactic mapping capabilities of XSLT with the semantic knowledge of MetaNet, to enable flexible and dynamic mapping among metadata standards.
  15. Ruhl, M.: Do we need metadata? : an on-line survey in German archives (2012) 0.02 
    0.015003897 = product of:
  0.075019486 = sum of:
    0.075019486 = weight(_text_:semantic in 471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.075019486 = score(doc=471,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.38979942 = fieldWeight in 471, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=471)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The paper summarizes the results of an on-line survey which was executed 2010 in german archives of all branches. The survey focused on metadata and used metadata standards for the annotation of audiovisual media like pictures, audio and video files (analog and digital). The findings motivate the question whether archives are able to collaborate in projects like europeana if they do not use accepted standards for their orientation. Archives need more resources and archival staff need more training to execute more complex tasks in an digital and semantic surrounding.
    Source
    Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Semantic Digital Archives held in conjunction with the 16th Int. Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (TPDL) on September 27, 2012 in Paphos, Cyprus [http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-912/proceedings.pdf]. Eds.: A. Mitschik et al
  16. Roy, W.; Gray, C.: Preparing existing metadata for repository batch import : a recipe for a fickle food (2018) 0.01 
    0.013974184 = product of:
  0.06987092 = sum of:
    0.06987092 = sum of:
      0.03851439 = weight(_text_:web in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03851439 = score(doc=4550,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04628742 = queryNorm
          0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 4550, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4550)
      0.031356532 = weight(_text_:22 in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031356532 = score(doc=4550,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04628742 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4550, 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=4550)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    In 2016, the University of Waterloo began offering a mediated copyright review and deposit service to support the growth of our institutional repository UWSpace. This resulted in the need to batch import large lists of published works into the institutional repository quickly and accurately. A range of methods have been proposed for harvesting publications metadata en masse, but many technological solutions can easily become detached from a workflow that is both reproducible for support staff and applicable to a range of situations. Many repositories offer the capacity for batch upload via CSV, so our method provides a template Python script that leverages the Habanero library for populating CSV files with existing metadata retrieved from the CrossRef API. In our case, we have combined this with useful metadata contained in a TSV file downloaded from Web of Science in order to enrich our metadata as well. The appeal of this 'low-maintenance' method is that it provides more robust options for gathering metadata semi-automatically, and only requires the user's ability to access Web of Science and the Python program, while still remaining flexible enough for local customizations.
    Date
    10.11.2018 16:27:22
  17. Krause, J.; Schwänzl, R.: Inhaltserschließung : Formale Beschreibung, Identifikation und Retrieval, MetaDaten, Vernetzung (1998) 0.01 
    0.013102447 = product of:
  0.06551223 = sum of:
    0.06551223 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06551223 = score(doc=4462,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 4462, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4462)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  18. CARMEN : Content Analysis, Retrieval und Metadata: Effective Networking (1999) 0.01 
    0.013102447 = product of:
  0.06551223 = sum of:
    0.06551223 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06551223 = score(doc=5748,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 5748, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5748)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  19. Baker, T.: ¬A grammar of Dublin Core (2000) 0.01 
    0.009374451 = product of:
  0.046872254 = sum of:
    0.046872254 = sum of:
      0.021787029 = weight(_text_:web in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021787029 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04628742 = queryNorm
          0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
      0.025085226 = weight(_text_:22 in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025085226 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04628742 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Dublin Core is often presented as a modern form of catalog card -- a set of elements (and now qualifiers) that describe resources in a complete package. Sometimes it is proposed as an exchange format for sharing records among multiple collections. The founding principle that "every element is optional and repeatable" reinforces the notion that a Dublin Core description is to be taken as a whole. This paper, in contrast, is based on a much different premise: Dublin Core is a language. More precisely, it is a small language for making a particular class of statements about resources. Like natural languages, it has a vocabulary of word-like terms, the two classes of which -- elements and qualifiers -- function within statements like nouns and adjectives; and it has a syntax for arranging elements and qualifiers into statements according to a simple pattern. Whenever tourists order a meal or ask directions in an unfamiliar language, considerate native speakers will spontaneously limit themselves to basic words and simple sentence patterns along the lines of "I am so-and-so" or "This is such-and-such". Linguists call this pidginization. In such situations, a small phrase book or translated menu can be most helpful. By analogy, today's Web has been called an Internet Commons where users and information providers from a wide range of scientific, commercial, and social domains present their information in a variety of incompatible data models and description languages. In this context, Dublin Core presents itself as a metadata pidgin for digital tourists who must find their way in this linguistically diverse landscape. Its vocabulary is small enough to learn quickly, and its basic pattern is easily grasped. It is well-suited to serve as an auxiliary language for digital libraries. This grammar starts by defining terms. It then follows a 200-year-old tradition of English grammar teaching by focusing on the structure of single statements. It concludes by looking at the growing dictionary of Dublin Core vocabulary terms -- its registry, and at how statements can be used to build the metadata equivalent of paragraphs and compositions -- the application profile.
    Date
    26.12.2011 14:01:22
  20. Dillon, M.: Metadata for Web resources : how metadata works on the Web (2000) 0.01 
    0.009243454 = product of:
  0.046217266 = sum of:
    0.046217266 = product of:
      0.09243453 = sum of:
        0.09243453 = weight(_text_:web in 6798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09243453 = score(doc=6798,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.6119082 = fieldWeight in 6798, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6798)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 31
  • d 8

Types

  • a 22
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes