Search (28 results, page 1 of 2)

0.15326574 = product of:
  0.2554429 = sum of:
    0.03980924 = product of:
      0.19904618 = sum of:
        0.19904618 = weight(_text_:3a in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19904618 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.35416332 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.19904618 = weight(_text_:2f in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19904618 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.35416332 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
    0.016587472 = weight(_text_:of in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016587472 = score(doc=2918,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The employees of an organization often use a personal hierarchical classification scheme to organize digital documents that are stored on their own workstations. As this may make it hard for other employees to retrieve these documents, there is a risk that the organization will lose track of needed documentation. Furthermore, the inherent boundaries of such a hierarchical structure require making arbitrary decisions about which specific criteria the classification will b.e based on (for instance, the administrative activity or the document type, although a document can have several attributes and require classification in several classes).A faceted classification model to support corporate information organization is proposed. Partially based on Ranganathan's facets theory, this model aims not only to standardize the organization of digital documents, but also to simplify the management of a document throughout its life cycle for both individuals and organizations, while ensuring compliance to regulatory and policy requirements.

Footnote

Vgl.: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?reload=true&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F4755313%2F4755314%2F04755480.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4755480&authDecision=-203.

0.038941674 = product of:
  0.09735418 = sum of:
    0.070290476 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070290476 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.30488142 = fieldWeight in 2837, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2837)
    0.027063707 = weight(_text_:of in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027063707 = score(doc=2837,freq=46.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.41429368 = fieldWeight in 2837, product of:
          6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
            46.0 = termFreq=46.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2837)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide a reconsideration of Michael Buckland's important question, "What is a document?", analysing the point and purpose of definitions of "document" and "documentation". Design/methodology/approach - Two philosophical notions of the point of definitions are contrasted: John Stuart Mill's concept of a "real" definition, purporting to specify the nature of the definiendum; and a concept of definition based upon a foundationalist philosophy of language. Both conceptions assume that a general, philosophical justification for using words as we do is always in order. This assumption is criticized by deploying Hilary Putnam's arguments against the orthodox Wittgensteinian interpretation of criteria governing the use of language. The example of the cabinets of curiosities of the sixteenth-century English and European virtuosi is developed to show how one might productively think about what documents might be, but without a definition of a document. Findings - Other than for specific, instrumentalist purposes (often appropriate for specific case studies), there is no general philosophical reason for asking, what is a document? There are good reasons for pursuing studies of documentation without the impediments of definitions of "document" or "documentation". Originality/value - The paper makes an original contribution to the new interest in documentation studies by providing conceptual resources for multiplying, rather than restricting, the areas of application of the concepts of documents and documentation.

Source

Journal of documentation. 65(2009) no.2, S.291-303

0.0168647 = product of:
  0.028107833 = sum of:
    0.008315044 = product of:
      0.041575223 = sum of:
        0.041575223 = weight(_text_:problem in 3220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041575223 = score(doc=3220,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 3220, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3220)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.005643173 = weight(_text_:of in 3220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005643173 = score(doc=3220,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.086386204 = fieldWeight in 3220, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3220)
    0.0141496165 = product of:
      0.028299233 = sum of:
        0.028299233 = weight(_text_:22 in 3220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028299233 = score(doc=3220,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3220, 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=3220)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Die September/Oktober-Ausgabe 2009 der IWP ist eine Schwerpunktausgabe zum Records Management. Es ist interessant, dass einmal aus fachlich ganz anderer Perspektive auf diese Management- Disziplin geschaut wird. Viele Aspekte werden angesprochen: Terminologie, Rolle des Archivwesens, Interdisziplinarität, Langzeitaufbewahrung und Standardisierung. Im Artikel "Wissensorganisation und Records Management. Was ist der 'state of the art'?" steht die Wissensorganisation als Schwachstelle des Records Management zentral. Dies zu Recht: Das logische Datenmodell von DOMEA - das Gleiche gilt für GEVER und ELAK - entspricht beispielsweise nicht in allen Hinsichten der Geschäftsrealität. Daraus entstehen für die Mitarbeitenden im Arbeitsalltag öfters mehr Verständnisprobleme als sie bewältigen können oder wollen. Die systemische Unterstützung der eingesetzten EDRMS (nicht alle Produkte verdienen übrigens diesen Namen) wird dadurch geschwächt. Die Wissensorganisation genügt in vielen Fällen (noch) nicht. Das Problem liegt allerdings weniger bei der Klassifikation (Aktenplan), wie Ulrike Spree meint. Auch hier kommen Anomalien vor. Ein Ordnungssystem im Records Management umfasst mehr als nur die Klassifikation. Zudem dürfen die prinzipiellen, inhärenten Unterschiede zwischen Records Management einerseits und Wissens- und Informationsmanagement andererseits nicht vergessen gehen. Nicht die Klassifikation ist beim Records Management das zentrale Werkzeug der Informationsrepräsentation und -organisation, sondern die saubere Dossierbildung und die stringente, strukturstabile Umsetzung davon im Datenmodell. Hierauf geht die Autorin nicht ein. Ich werde aus dieser Sicht auf ihren Beitrag in der Schwerpunktausgabe reagieren.

Date

6.12.2009 17:22:17

0.011061886 = product of:
  0.027654715 = sum of:
    0.014111101 = product of:
      0.0705555 = sum of:
        0.0705555 = weight(_text_:problem in 5593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0705555 = score(doc=5593,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.39792046 = fieldWeight in 5593, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5593)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.013543615 = weight(_text_:of in 5593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013543615 = score(doc=5593,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 5593, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5593)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The amount of digital content produced at academic research institutions is large, and libraries and archives at these institutions have a responsibility to bring this digital material under curatorial control in order to manage and preserve it over time. But this is a daunting task with few proven models, requiring new technology, policies, procedures, core staff competencies, and cost models. The MIT Libraries are working with the DSpace(TM) open-source digital repository platform to explore the problem of capturing research and teaching material in any digital format and preserving it over time. By collaborating on this problem with other research institutions using the DSpace platform in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and other parts of the world, as well as with other important efforts in the digital preservation arena, we are beginning to see ways of managing arbitrary digital content that might make digital preservation an achievable goal.

0.0071886913 = product of:
  0.017971728 = sum of:
    0.0066520358 = product of:
      0.033260178 = sum of:
        0.033260178 = weight(_text_:problem in 1512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033260178 = score(doc=1512,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.1875815 = fieldWeight in 1512, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1512)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.011319693 = product of:
      0.022639386 = sum of:
        0.022639386 = weight(_text_:22 in 1512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022639386 = score(doc=1512,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1512, 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=1512)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Das Hauptthema dieser Tagung - Multimedia - beschäftigt sich mit der Vielfalt der Medien und Quellen, mit denen wir es heute zu tun haben. Da liegt es nahe, sich auch mit einer anderen Form der Vielfalt, dem Thema Mehrsprachigkeit zu beschäftigen. Und die Veranstalter dieser Tagung waren der Meinung, dass ein Schweizer dazu mit Sicherheit etwas zu sagen habe. Das ist insofern richtig, als wir in einem mehrsprachigen Land leben und mit diesem Problem im Alltag vertraut sind, sowohl im täglichen Leben, wie auch eben im dokumentarischen Alltag. Aus dieser praktischen Sicht und nicht als Sprachwissenschafter, der ich nicht bin, möchte ich mich dem Thema nähern. Die Vielfalt der deutschen Sprache: Wenn die Schweiz ein mehrsprachiges Land ist - ist dann Deutschland im Gegensatz dazu ein einsprachiges Land? Auf den ersten Blick sicher ja - in Deutschland spricht man deutsch - aber die Sache ist doch nicht so einfach. Natürlich leben auch hier, wie überall, Menschen aus anderen Ländern mit anderen Muttersprachen - in dieser Optik gibt es wohl fast nur mehrsprachige Länder. Aber auch wenn wir nur die einheimische Bevölkerung mit deutschem Pass betrachten, ist die Sache nicht so eindeutig. Zwar haben sie das Deutsche als gemeinsame Sprache, die von allen gesprochen und verstanden wird. Aber die eigentliche Muttersprache der Deutschen oder mindestens einer grossen Mehrheit ist nicht das Hochdeutsche, sondern einer der vielen Dialekte. Diese Dialekte sind ja höchst unterschiedlich und einem Bayern oder Schwaben geht es sicher nicht anders, als es mir vor Jahren ergangen ist, als ich in Norddeutschland erstmals plattdeutsch sprechen hörte: ich hab nicht mal mehr Bahnhof verstanden und benötigte einige Wochen, bis ich der Unterhaltung wenigstens in groben Zügen folgen konnte. Das Hochdeutsche ist da der gemeinsame Nenner und ermöglichst erst die Verständigung, auch wenn es mit vielfältigen Akzenten und regional eingefärbtem Vokabular gesprochen wird. In diesem Sinne ist die Situation nicht anders als in der deutschsprachigen Schweiz, wo auch ganz unterschiedliche Dialekte gesprochen werden. Allerdings gibt es doch einen wichtigen Unterschied: Hier in Deutschland ist Hochdeutsch die allgemeine Umgangssprache sowohl in der mündlichen wie in der schriftlichen Kommunikation. Dialekte werden im privaten Bereich gesprochen, aber im öffentlichen Bereich, im Geschäftsleben, in der Wissenschaft etc. ist Hochdeutsch die Umgangssprache.

Date

22. 4.2003 12:09:10

0.007081686 = product of:
  0.017704215 = sum of:
    0.0063845213 = weight(_text_:of in 1507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0063845213 = score(doc=1507,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.09773483 = fieldWeight in 1507, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1507)
    0.011319693 = product of:
      0.022639386 = sum of:
        0.022639386 = weight(_text_:22 in 1507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022639386 = score(doc=1507,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1507, 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=1507)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Wir werden einmal die Grundlagen des Text-Mining-Systems bei IBM darstellen, dann werden wir das Projekt etwas umfangreicher und deutlicher darstellen, da kennen wir uns aus. Von daher haben wir zwei Teile, einmal Heidelberg, einmal Hamburg. Noch einmal zur Technologie. Text-Mining ist eine von IBM entwickelte Technologie, die in einer besonderen Ausformung und Programmierung für uns zusammengestellt wurde. Das Projekt hieß bei uns lange Zeit DocText Miner und heißt seit einiger Zeit auf Vorschlag von IBM DocCat, das soll eine Abkürzung für Document-Categoriser sein, sie ist ja auch nett und anschaulich. Wir fangen an mit Text-Mining, das bei IBM in Heidelberg entwickelt wurde. Die verstehen darunter das automatische Indexieren als eine Instanz, also einen Teil von Text-Mining. Probleme werden dabei gezeigt, und das Text-Mining ist eben eine Methode zur Strukturierung von und der Suche in großen Dokumentenmengen, die Extraktion von Informationen und, das ist der hohe Anspruch, von impliziten Zusammenhängen. Das letztere sei dahingestellt. IBM macht das quantitativ, empirisch, approximativ und schnell. das muss man wirklich sagen. Das Ziel, und das ist ganz wichtig für unser Projekt gewesen, ist nicht, den Text zu verstehen, sondern das Ergebnis dieser Verfahren ist, was sie auf Neudeutsch a bundle of words, a bag of words nennen, also eine Menge von bedeutungstragenden Begriffen aus einem Text zu extrahieren, aufgrund von Algorithmen, also im Wesentlichen aufgrund von Rechenoperationen. Es gibt eine ganze Menge von linguistischen Vorstudien, ein wenig Linguistik ist auch dabei, aber nicht die Grundlage der ganzen Geschichte. Was sie für uns gemacht haben, ist also die Annotierung von Pressetexten für unsere Pressedatenbank. Für diejenigen, die es noch nicht kennen: Gruner + Jahr führt eine Textdokumentation, die eine Datenbank führt, seit Anfang der 70er Jahre, da sind z.Z. etwa 6,5 Millionen Dokumente darin, davon etwas über 1 Million Volltexte ab 1993. Das Prinzip war lange Zeit, dass wir die Dokumente, die in der Datenbank gespeichert waren und sind, verschlagworten und dieses Prinzip haben wir auch dann, als der Volltext eingeführt wurde, in abgespeckter Form weitergeführt. Zu diesen 6,5 Millionen Dokumenten gehören dann eben auch ungefähr 10 Millionen Faksimileseiten, weil wir die Faksimiles auch noch standardmäßig aufheben.

Date

22. 4.2003 11:45:36

0.0054174457 = product of:
  0.027087228 = sum of:
    0.027087228 = weight(_text_:of in 809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027087228 = score(doc=809,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.41465375 = fieldWeight in 809, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=809)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide a review of content management in the context of information architecture. Design/methodology/approach - The method adopted is a review of definitions of information architecture and an analysis of the importance of content and its management within information architecture. Findings - Concludes that reality will not necessarily match the vision of organisations investing in information architecture. Originality/value - The paper considers practical issues around content and records management.

0.004691646 = product of:
  0.02345823 = sum of:
    0.02345823 = weight(_text_:of in 4255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02345823 = score(doc=4255,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 4255, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4255)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information science. Vol.71, [=Suppl.34]

0.004691646 = product of:
  0.02345823 = sum of:
    0.02345823 = weight(_text_:of in 3771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02345823 = score(doc=3771,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 3771, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3771)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

From characteristics of information, documents and document information systems (document IS), motives to use document IS are described. A few cases are presented. The functional aspects of document IS are described, derived from ISO standard 15489 on records management and the Sarbanes-Oxley law, and made operational in MoReq and DoD standard 5015.2. Explicit attention is given to related subjects from a viewpoint of document management: information sharing (workflow, knowledge management), and interoperability of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) tools; authenticity because of the possible evidential value of documents; and digital longevity because of the possible long-time function of archival documents. The technical aspects answer functional demands; important information science standards, and standard components for 12 characteristics of document IS are described, among others ODMA, the XML family, OAIS, and metadata schemes. The design methodological aspects answer functional demands and technical possibilities. Models are introduced and the way of working of, e.g., a digitization project is described.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.004423326 = product of:
  0.02211663 = sum of:
    0.02211663 = weight(_text_:of in 2480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02211663 = score(doc=2480,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 2480, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2480)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This communication describes part of a current research carried out at the Université de Technologie de Troyes and funded by a postdoctoral grant from the Fonds québécois de la recherche sur la société et la culture. Under the title "Design and evaluation of a faceted classification for uniform and personal organization of administrative electronic documents", our research investigates the feasibility of creating a faceted and multi-points-of-view classification scheme for administrative document organization and retrieval in online environments.

0.004037926 = product of:
  0.02018963 = sum of:
    0.02018963 = weight(_text_:of in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018963 = score(doc=4150,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Present and possible future developments in the techniques of document management are reviewed, the major ones being text retrieval and scanning and OCR. Acquisition, indexing and thesauri, publishing and dissemination and the document management industry are also addressed. The emerging standards are reviewed and the impact of the Internet is analysed.

Source

Journal of documentation. 57(2001) no.2, S.192-217

0.0038704101 = product of:
  0.01935205 = sum of:
    0.01935205 = weight(_text_:of in 1499) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01935205 = score(doc=1499,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 1499, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1499)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Information systems are essential support for knowledge management in all types of enterprises. This paper describes the evolution and development of a specialized hospital information system. The system is designed to integrate for access and retrieval from databases of patients' case records, and related images - CATSCAN, MRI, X-Ray - and to enable online access to full text of relevant papers on the Internet/WWW. The generation of information products and services from the system is briefly described.

0.0038704101 = product of:
  0.01935205 = sum of:
    0.01935205 = weight(_text_:of in 2256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01935205 = score(doc=2256,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 2256, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2256)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

This paper describes part of a current research investigating the feasibility of creating a faceted and multi-viewed knowledge organization system (KOS) for administrative document organization in online environments. Preliminary findings support the faceted and multi-viewed classification as a promising altemative to the hierarchical paradigm for personal administrative electronic documents organization. Further analysis about identification of semantic relations between facets to reduce number of facet descriptors is required. Technical improvements are also needed to enhance the faceted navigation interface used within the pilot test.

Source

Culture and identity in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Tenth International ISKO Conference 5-8 August 2008, Montreal, Canada. Ed. by Clément Arsenault and Joseph T. Tennis

0.0036116305 = product of:
  0.018058153 = sum of:
    0.018058153 = weight(_text_:of in 4516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018058153 = score(doc=4516,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 4516, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4516)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Discusses the skills and competencies required by contemporary records managers. The role of the records manager has recently gained a higher profile - due to increasing legislation (resulting from various corporate scandals worldwide) requiring organisations to focus an the integrity, currency and accessibility of their records. Case studies are included in the book to indicate the wide range of activities undertaken by records managers. The book addresses the skills and competencies required by records managers and considers how these are acquired and developed. Using guidance, actions plans can be developed by the reader. Using research undertaken by the author, a sample of roles currently undertaken is evaluated in detail to provide examples of the competencies and skills required for each role.

Content

Key Features - Fills the gap in the literature addressing competencies for records managers - Emerging legislation and regulatory frameworks and recent corporate scandals haue provided opportunities for records managers to increase their profile and involvement at the strategic level of their organisation. This book provides information an the required competencies to support and enable this higher profile - The author is a highly experienced practitioner, and also has a post-graduate qualification in the area - The use of case studies of practicing records managers provides real-life examples of the diversity of the contemporary records manager The Author Ceri Hughes is Associate Director of Global Knowledge Management at KPMG Financial Advisory Services. She is an active member of the Records Management Society of Great Britain, served four years an the Society's executive and is currently the Immediate Past Chair, having chaired the Society 2001-2003. Readership Records management and knowledge management practitioners. Data protection/Privacy/ Freedom of Information professionals. Information management sector training professionals. Records management students Contents Part 1: The role of the records manager - Records management in the modern environment: Records managers-'basement to boardroom': evaluating the range of roles: Records management in the knowledge economy Part 2: Skills and competencies - Core competencies: Core skills: Adding value Part 3: Records management and career progression - Continuing professional development: Higher education: Professional networks: Continuing career development Part 4: Conclusions - Conclusion: Useful directory

0.0036116305 = product of:
  0.018058153 = sum of:
    0.018058153 = weight(_text_:of in 1502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018058153 = score(doc=1502,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 1502, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1502)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Briefly describes the information products and services, the related databases, development of digital library and web-resources and web-based services, vocabulary control tools, networking, and other projects of the Library of the National Tuberculosis Institute (NTI), Bangalore. Acknowledges the involvement of and advice and assistance provided by Prof. A. Neelameghan to these programmes and projects.

0.0033859033 = product of:
  0.016929517 = sum of:
    0.016929517 = weight(_text_:of in 977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016929517 = score(doc=977,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 977, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=977)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Important legacy paper documents are digitized and collected in online accessible archives. This enables the preservation, sharing, and significantly the searching of these documents. The text contents of these document images can be transcribed automatically using OCR systems and then stored in an information retrieval system. However, OCR systems make errors in character recognition which have previously been shown to impact on document retrieval behaviour. In particular relevance feedback query-expansion methods, which are often effective for improving electronic text retrieval, are observed to be less reliable for retrieval of scanned document images. Our experimental examination of the effects of character recognition errors on an ad hoc OCR retrieval task demonstrates that, while baseline information retrieval can remain relatively unaffected by transcription errors, relevance feedback via query expansion becomes highly unstable. This paper examines the reason for this behaviour, and introduces novel modifications to standard relevance feedback methods. These methods are shown experimentally to improve the effectiveness of relevance feedback for errorful OCR transcriptions. The new methods combine similar recognised character strings based on term collection frequency and a string edit-distance measure. The techniques are domain independent and make no use of external resources such as dictionaries or training data.

0.0028299233 = product of:
  0.0141496165 = sum of:
    0.0141496165 = product of:
      0.028299233 = sum of:
        0.028299233 = weight(_text_:22 in 1938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028299233 = score(doc=1938,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1938, 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=1938)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 6.2008 17:34:12

0.0027367936 = product of:
  0.013683967 = sum of:
    0.013683967 = weight(_text_:of in 1749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013683967 = score(doc=1749,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 1749, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1749)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A practical approach to developing and operating an effective programme to manage hybrid records within an organization. This title positions records management as an integral business function linked to the organisation's business aims and objectives. The authors also address the records requirements of new and significant pieces of legislation, such as data protection and freedom of information, as well as exploring strategies for managing electronic records. Bullet points, checklists and examples assist the reader throughout, making this a one-stop resource for information in this area.

0.002708723 = product of:
  0.013543615 = sum of:
    0.013543615 = weight(_text_:of in 3868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013543615 = score(doc=3868,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 3868, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3868)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Records, as documents which provide evidence of business transactions that have taken place, are collected and preserved for as long as they are useful to the organization, or as is demanded by law. In order to be useful, however, they must be organized in such a way that they can easily be identified, located, accessed, and used, for whatever purpose. First, the records must be described by identifying the most useful salient characteristics; then, they are categorized in various ways, according to their age, function, level of confidentiality, privacy and security, and access to them controlled according to these categories. Records may be arranged by one of several ordinal systems, usually involving letters and numbers, but also color: these symbolically represent the characteristics that are considered as important descriptors. Thus, records can be accessed (or protected from access) by their category; they can be located by correspondence between terms (which may be words or numbers) used to describe characteristics and terms used in searching for particular records or records series. These principles apply to both physical and virtual records.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.0022639388 = product of:
  0.011319693 = sum of:
    0.011319693 = product of:
      0.022639386 = sum of:
        0.022639386 = weight(_text_:22 in 5868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022639386 = score(doc=5868,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5868, 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=5868)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

16. 5.2001 12:22:23