Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

0.027719207 = product of:
  0.08315762 = sum of:
    0.07089086 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 4324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07089086 = score(doc=4324,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1578712 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.44904238 = fieldWeight in 4324, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4324)
    0.012266762 = product of:
      0.036800284 = sum of:
        0.036800284 = weight(_text_:29 in 4324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036800284 = score(doc=4324,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 4324, 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=4324)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Was bezahlt die ETH Bibliothek an Elsevier, Springer und Wiley? Die Antwort auf diese einfache Frage liegt nun nach gut 14 Monaten und einem Entscheid der ersten Rekursinstanz (EDÖB) vor. Werfen wir nun also einen Blick in diese nun erstmals öffentlich zugänglichen Daten (auch als XLSX). Die ETH-Bibliothek schlüsselte die Ausgaben wie von mir gewünscht in Datenbanken, E-Books und Zeitschriften auf.

Source

http://wisspub.net/2015/08/29/zahlungen-der-eth-zuerich-an-elsevier-springer-und-wiley-nun-oeffentlich/

0.02766033 = product of:
  0.08298099 = sum of:
    0.060763597 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 1272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060763597 = score(doc=1272,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1578712 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.38489348 = fieldWeight in 1272, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1272)
    0.022217397 = weight(_text_:internet in 1272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022217397 = score(doc=1272,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 1272, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1272)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Das Internet mache Bibliotheken überflüssig, sagt der Chef der ETH-Bibliothek im Interview. Entweder sie räumen ihre Bücherbestände aus und erfinden sich neu - oder sie werden verschwinden.

Content

Vgl. auch den Kommentar von Klaus Graf unter: http://archivalia.hypotheses.org/54235. Vgl. auch: http://ruedimumenthaler.ch/2016/02/08/sind-bibliotheken-uberflussig-eine-replik/ sowie http://ruedimumenthaler.ch/2016/02/12/bibliotheksbranche-im-umbruch-und-in-aufruhr/. Vgl. auch: http://www.researchinformation.info/news/news_story.php?news_id=2077 [Es ist einfach nur peinlich realitätsfremd und dem Amt als ETH-Bibliotheksdirektor unwürdig, die heutige Situation als "established, reliable and sustainable" zu bezeichnen und sich gleichzeitig als "begnadeter Vordenker" (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13689512/begnadeter%20Vordenker.pdf) zu ernennen.] Vgl.auch: http://christoph-deeg.com/2016/02/13/quo-vadis-oeffentliche-bibliotheken-gedanken-zum-nzz-interview-von-rafael-ball-eth-bibliothek/. Vgl. auch: http://www.nzz.ch/feuilleton/ueber-eine-zukunftsvision-die-ein-horrorszenario-sein-koennte-1.18693786.

0.027568128 = product of:
  0.08270438 = sum of:
    0.050636325 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 2923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050636325 = score(doc=2923,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1578712 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.32074454 = fieldWeight in 2923, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2923)
    0.03206805 = weight(_text_:internet in 2923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03206805 = score(doc=2923,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.28247973 = fieldWeight in 2923, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2923)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Der Internet-Riese darf sein Projekt "Google Books" wie gehabt fortsetzen. Der Oberste US-Gerichtshof lehnte die von einer Autorenvereingung geforderte Revision ab. Google teste mit seinem Projekt zwar die Grenzen der Fairness aus, handele aber rechtens, sagten die Richter.

Content

" Im Streit mit Google um Urheberrechte ist eine Gruppe von Buchautoren am Obersten US-Gericht gescheitert. Der Supreme Court lehnte es ab, die google-freundliche Entscheidung eines niederen Gerichtes zur Revision zuzulassen. In dem Fall geht es um die Online-Bibliothek "Google Books", für die der kalifornische Konzern Gerichtsunterlagen zufolge mehr als 20 Millionen Bücher digitalisiert hat. Durch das Projekt können Internet-Nutzer innerhalb der Bücher nach Stichworten suchen und die entsprechenden Textstellen lesen. Die drei zuständigen Richter entschieden einstimmig, dass in dem Fall zwar die Grenzen der Fairness ausgetestet würden, aber das Vorgehen von Google letztlich rechtens sei. Entschädigungen in Milliardenhöhe gefürchtet Die von dem Interessensverband Authors Guild angeführten Kläger sahen ihre Urheberrechte durch "Google Books" verletzt. Dazu gehörten auch prominente Künstler wie die Schriftstellerin und Dichterin Margaret Atwood. Google führte dagegen an, die Internet-Bibliothek kurbele den Bücherverkauf an, weil Leser dadurch zusätzlich auf interessante Werke aufmerksam gemacht würden. Google reagierte "dankbar" auf die Entscheidung des Supreme Court. Der Konzern hatte befürchtet, bei einer juristischen Niederlage Entschädigungen in Milliardenhöhe zahlen zu müssen."

0.014829482 = product of:
  0.044488445 = sum of:
    0.035805292 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035805292 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1578712 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.22680065 = fieldWeight in 4281, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4281)
    0.008683153 = product of:
      0.02604946 = sum of:
        0.02604946 = weight(_text_:22 in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02604946 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4281, 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=4281)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Das kennt der Sammler: Da fängt man an, sich für eine Sache zu interessieren und alles darüber zusammenzutragen, was man kriegen kann, und dann hat man sich verhoben, weil man die Sache ein wenig zu groß angegangen ist. So ist es zum Beispiel blöd, in der Wüste zu sitzen und sich zu überlegen, alle Kiefernnadeln weltweit zusammentragen zu wollen, weil das ja von dort aus gesehen nicht so viele sein können. Und dann beginnt man nach einiger Zeit diese Website über die Kiefernwälder weltweit zu finden und sich am Kopf zu kratzen. Also beschließt man nur noch "herausragende Kiefernnadeln" zu sammeln, was immer das sein mag. Aber auf jeden Fall hat man es satt, jeden Tag mehrere Tausend Säcke Bioabfall von schwitzenden Postboten vor die Tore gestellt zu bekommen. So ähnlich muss es der Library of Congress gehen, wenn sie im Dezember 2017 genau das beschließt. Also, nicht wirklich das Sammeln von Kiefernnadeln einzustellen. Vielmehr handelt es sich ja um die umfangreichste Bibliothek der Welt, die alle möglichen Inhalte in Büchern, auf Tonbändern und eben auch Tweets sammelt. Das ist ihr jetzt zu viel geworden. Kann man verstehen, kommen wir ja schon mit dem Lesen von Tweets eines kleinhändigen Präsidenten kaum noch nach, dann muss es da draußen ja auch noch eine ganze Menge anderes Zeugs geben. Die armen Bibliothekare in den dortigen Kellern weinen ja schon, wenn sie wieder tonnenweise kommentierte Retweets und diesen Mist auf den Tisch bekamen, alleine das Ausdrucken von bis zu 280 Zeichen und Bildern dauert ja ewig ... ganz zu schweigen vom Einsortieren.

Date

22. 1.2018 11:38:55

0.01282722 = product of:
  0.07696332 = sum of:
    0.07696332 = weight(_text_:internet in 3212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07696332 = score(doc=3212,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.67795134 = fieldWeight in 3212, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3212)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Darstellung der verschiedenen Dateiformate, wie sie im Internet verwendet werden sowie die Möglichkeiten, die Dateien zu nutzen (einschl. Angaben zu Software etc.)

Theme

Internet

0.010127267 = product of:
  0.060763597 = sum of:
    0.060763597 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060763597 = score(doc=138,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1578712 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.38489348 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Open Access Helper <https://www.oahelper.org> ist eine Browser-Erweiterung, die es Ihren Nutzern leichter machen soll, Open Access Kopien für wissenschaftliche Literatur zu finden. Dabei prüft Open Access Helper im Hintergrund anhand der ausgezeichneten APIs von unpaywall.org and core.ac.uk. Neben der Möglichkeit Open Access Kopien zu finden, hat Open Access Helper <https://www.oahelper.org> nun einen wichtigen Schritt gemacht, Ihre Nutzer noch besser zu unterstützen. Dank der Zusammenarbeit mit einer Bibliothek in Irland, kann die Erweiterung Ihre Nutzer nun besser unterstützen. Als Bibliothek können Sie für Open Access Helper Ihren* EZProxy* und/oder ein *Anfrageformular* bzw. *Link Resolver* hinterlegen. Es entstehen Ihnen und Ihren Nutzerinnen und Nutzern hierbei keine Kosten. Open Access Helper gibt es für Chrome, Firefox, Safari (macOS) und auch für iPad & iPhone. Download Links finden Sie unter https://www.oahelper.org oder über eine Such im App / Extension Store Ihrer Wahl. Weitere Informationen finden Sie unter https://www.oahelper.org.

0.008913453 = product of:
  0.026740357 = sum of:
    0.021483174 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021483174 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1578712 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.13608038 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
    0.005257183 = product of:
      0.01577155 = sum of:
        0.01577155 = weight(_text_:29 in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01577155 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.11659596 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Sponsored by the German Ministry of Education and Research with funding of 800.000 EURO, the German Network of Expertise in long-term storage of digital resources (nestor) began in June 2003 as a cooperative effort of 6 partners representing different players within the field of long-term preservation. The partners include: * The German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek) as the lead institution for the project * The State and University Library of Lower Saxony Göttingen (Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen) * The Computer and Media Service and the University Library of Humboldt-University Berlin (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) * The Bavarian State Library in Munich (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek) * The Institute for Museum Information in Berlin (Institut für Museumskunde) * General Directorate of the Bavarian State Archives (GDAB) As in other countries, long-term preservation of digital resources has become an important issue in Germany in recent years. Nevertheless, coming to agreement with institutions throughout the country to cooperate on tasks for a long-term preservation effort has taken a great deal of effort. Although there had been considerable attention paid to the preservation of physical media like CD-ROMS, technologies available for the long-term preservation of digital publications like e-books, digital dissertations, websites, etc., are still lacking. Considering the importance of the task within the federal structure of Germany, with the responsibility of each federal state for its science and culture activities, it is obvious that the approach to a successful solution of these issues in Germany must be a cooperative approach. Since 2000, there have been discussions about strategies and techniques for long-term archiving of digital information, particularly within the distributed structure of Germany's library and archival institutions. A key part of all the previous activities was focusing on using existing standards and analyzing the context in which those standards would be applied. One such activity, the Digital Library Forum Planning Project, was done on behalf of the German Ministry of Education and Research in 2002, where the vision of a digital library in 2010 that can meet the changing and increasing needs of users was developed and described in detail, including the infrastructure required and how the digital library would work technically, what it would contain and how it would be organized. The outcome was a strategic plan for certain selected specialist areas, where, amongst other topics, a future call for action for long-term preservation was defined, described and explained against the background of practical experience.
As follow up, in 2002 the nestor long-term archiving working group provided an initial spark towards planning and organising coordinated activities concerning the long-term preservation and long-term availability of digital documents in Germany. This resulted in a workshop, held 29 - 30 October 2002, where major tasks were discussed. Influenced by the demands and progress of the nestor network, the participants reached agreement to start work on application-oriented projects and to address the following topics: * Overlapping problems o Collection and preservation of digital objects (selection criteria, preservation policy) o Definition of criteria for trusted repositories o Creation of models of cooperation, etc. * Digital objects production process o Analysis of potential conflicts between production and long-term preservation o Documentation of existing document models and recommendations for standards models to be used for long-term preservation o Identification systems for digital objects, etc. * Transfer of digital objects o Object data and metadata o Transfer protocols and interoperability o Handling of different document types, e.g. dynamic publications, etc. * Long-term preservation of digital objects o Design and prototype implementation of depot systems for digital objects (OAIS was chosen to be the best functional model.) o Authenticity o Functional requirements on user interfaces of an depot system o Identification systems for digital objects, etc. At the end of the workshop, participants decided to establish a permanent distributed infrastructure for long-term preservation and long-term accessibility of digital resources in Germany comparable, e.g., to the Digital Preservation Coalition in the UK. The initial phase, nestor, is now being set up by the above-mentioned 3-year funding project.

0.005236691 = product of:
  0.031420145 = sum of:
    0.031420145 = weight(_text_:internet in 1656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031420145 = score(doc=1656,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.27677247 = fieldWeight in 1656, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1656)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This selective bibliography presents over 1,900 articles, books, and other printed and electronic sources that are useful in understanding scholarly electronic publishing efforts on the Internet

Theme

Internet

0.0043200497 = product of:
  0.025920296 = sum of:
    0.025920296 = weight(_text_:internet in 3949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025920296 = score(doc=3949,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.22832564 = fieldWeight in 3949, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3949)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Die American Chemical Society hat ihren Rechtsstreit gegen die "Piraten-Website" Sci-Hub gewonnen. Ein Gericht in Virginia verurteilte Sci-Hub zu einem Schadenersatz von 4,8 Millionen Dollar und untersagte Internet-Dienstleistern, Suchmaschinenbetreibern und Registrierstellen von Domain-Namen, ihre eventuelle Zusammenarbeit mit Sci-Hub fortzusetzen.

0.004093278 = product of:
  0.024559667 = sum of:
    0.024559667 = product of:
      0.073679 = sum of:
        0.073679 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073679 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38

0.0040469817 = product of:
  0.02428189 = sum of:
    0.02428189 = product of:
      0.07284567 = sum of:
        0.07284567 = weight(_text_:29 in 5624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07284567 = score(doc=5624,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.5385337 = fieldWeight in 5624, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5624)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 6.2019 17:46:17
4. 8.2019 19:52:29

Issue

[29. Juli 2019].

0.0037028994 = product of:
  0.022217397 = sum of:
    0.022217397 = weight(_text_:internet in 2335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022217397 = score(doc=2335,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 2335, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2335)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Wie eine gigantische Informationslandschaft tut sich das Internet vor unseren Augen auf. Und seit sich Google im Herbst letzten Jahres mit den Autoren und Verlegern, die die große Suchmaschine wegen Urheberrechtsverletzung verklagt hatten, auf einen Vergleich geeinigt hat, stellt sich die Frage nach der Orientierung im World Wide Web mit neuer Dringlichkeit. Während der letzten vier Jahre hat Google Millionen von Büchern, darunter zahllose urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke, aus den Beständen großer Forschungsbibliotheken digitalisiert und für die Onlinesuche ins Netz gestellt. Autoren und Verleger machten dagegen geltend, dass die Digitalisierung eine Copyrightverletzung darstelle. Nach langwierigen Verhandlungen einigte man sich auf eine Regelung, die gravierende Auswirkungen darauf haben wird, wie Bücher den Weg zu ihren Lesern finden. . . .

0.003504789 = product of:
  0.021028733 = sum of:
    0.021028733 = product of:
      0.0630862 = sum of:
        0.0630862 = weight(_text_:29 in 5727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0630862 = score(doc=5727,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 5727, 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=5727)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

1. 4.2019 10:29:34

0.0023155077 = product of:
  0.0138930455 = sum of:
    0.0138930455 = product of:
      0.041679136 = sum of:
        0.041679136 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041679136 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3882, 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=3882)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

9.10.2017 15:48:22

0.0020444603 = product of:
  0.012266762 = sum of:
    0.012266762 = product of:
      0.036800284 = sum of:
        0.036800284 = weight(_text_:29 in 5333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036800284 = score(doc=5333,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 5333, 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=5333)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 6.2019 17:46:17

0.0020260692 = product of:
  0.012156415 = sum of:
    0.012156415 = product of:
      0.036469243 = sum of:
        0.036469243 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036469243 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 252, 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=252)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.0017523945 = product of:
  0.010514366 = sum of:
    0.010514366 = product of:
      0.0315431 = sum of:
        0.0315431 = weight(_text_:29 in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0315431 = score(doc=1065,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

5.10.2023 18:29:15

0.0017366307 = product of:
  0.010419784 = sum of:
    0.010419784 = product of:
      0.03125935 = sum of:
        0.03125935 = weight(_text_:22 in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03125935 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 596, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=596)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

1. 1.2020 13:22:34

0.0011577539 = product of:
  0.0069465227 = sum of:
    0.0069465227 = product of:
      0.020839568 = sum of:
        0.020839568 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020839568 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, 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=3608)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

You were going to get one-click access to the full text of nearly every book that's ever been published. Books still in print you'd have to pay for, but everything else-a collection slated to grow larger than the holdings at the Library of Congress, Harvard, the University of Michigan, at any of the great national libraries of Europe-would have been available for free at terminals that were going to be placed in every local library that wanted one. At the terminal you were going to be able to search tens of millions of books and read every page of any book you found. You'd be able to highlight passages and make annotations and share them; for the first time, you'd be able to pinpoint an idea somewhere inside the vastness of the printed record, and send somebody straight to it with a link. Books would become as instantly available, searchable, copy-pasteable-as alive in the digital world-as web pages. It was to be the realization of a long-held dream. "The universal library has been talked about for millennia," Richard Ovenden, the head of Oxford's Bodleian Libraries, has said. "It was possible to think in the Renaissance that you might be able to amass the whole of published knowledge in a single room or a single institution." In the spring of 2011, it seemed we'd amassed it in a terminal small enough to fit on a desk. "This is a watershed event and can serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of education, research, and intellectual life," one eager observer wrote at the time. On March 22 of that year, however, the legal agreement that would have unlocked a century's worth of books and peppered the country with access terminals to a universal library was rejected under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. When the library at Alexandria burned it was said to be an "international catastrophe." When the most significant humanities project of our time was dismantled in court, the scholars, archivists, and librarians who'd had a hand in its undoing breathed a sigh of relief, for they believed, at the time, that they had narrowly averted disaster.