Search (189 results, page 10 of 10)

4.0026294E-4 = product of:
  0.005603681 = sum of:
    0.005603681 = weight(_text_:information in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005603681 = score(doc=2417,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.1301088 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Using citation data to assess research ultimately means using citation-based statistics to rank things.journals, papers, people, programs, and disciplines. The statistical tools used to rank these things are often misunderstood and misused. - For journals, the impact factor is most often used for ranking. This is a simple average derived from the distribution of citations for a collection of articles in the journal. The average captures only a small amount of information about that distribution, and it is a rather crude statistic. In addition, there are many confounding factors when judging journals by citations, and any comparison of journals requires caution when using impact factors. Using the impact factor alone to judge a journal is like using weight alone to judge a person's health. - For papers, instead of relying on the actual count of citations to compare individual papers, people frequently substitute the impact factor of the journals in which the papers appear. They believe that higher impact factors must mean higher citation counts. But this is often not the case! This is a pervasive misuse of statistics that needs to be challenged whenever and wherever it occurs. -For individual scientists, complete citation records can be difficult to compare. As a consequence, there have been attempts to find simple statistics that capture the full complexity of a scientist's citation record with a single number. The most notable of these is the h-index, which seems to be gaining in popularity. But even a casual inspection of the h-index and its variants shows that these are naive attempts to understand complicated citation records. While they capture a small amount of information about the distribution of a scientist's citations, they lose crucial information that is essential for the assessment of research.
The validity of statistics such as the impact factor and h-index is neither well understood nor well studied. The connection of these statistics with research quality is sometimes established on the basis of "experience." The justification for relying on them is that they are "readily available." The few studies of these statistics that were done focused narrowly on showing a correlation with some other measure of quality rather than on determining how one can best derive useful information from citation data. We do not dismiss citation statistics as a tool for assessing the quality of research.citation data and statistics can provide some valuable information. We recognize that assessment must be practical, and for this reason easily-derived citation statistics almost surely will be part of the process. But citation data provide only a limited and incomplete view of research quality, and the statistics derived from citation data are sometimes poorly understood and misused. Research is too important to measure its value with only a single coarse tool. We hope those involved in assessment will read both the commentary and the details of this report in order to understand not only the limitations of citation statistics but also how better to use them. If we set high standards for the conduct of science, surely we should set equally high standards for assessing its quality.

3.653884E-4 = product of:
  0.0051154373 = sum of:
    0.0051154373 = weight(_text_:information in 641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0051154373 = score(doc=641,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.11877254 = fieldWeight in 641, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=641)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Das vorliegende Werk ist der erste Band in der Reihe "Branchenreports" der Semantic Web School. Diese Reihe, die in Zusammenarbeit mit Branchenexperten entwickelt wurde, verfolgt das Ziel, in regelmäßigen Abständen die Bedeutung semantischer Technologien in ausgewählten Branchen und Communities zu analysieren und zu durchleuchten. Damit sollen dem interessierten Leser in erster Linie ein Überblick und Einstiegspunkte geboten werden: Die Branchenreports helfen, sich in einem emergenten Umfeld besser orientieren zu können, sie zeigen Entwicklungspfade an, entlang welcher sich Branchen bewegen, die vermehrt auf den Einsatz semantischer Informationstechnologien setzen. Dieser Branchenreport beschäftigt sich mit dem Bibliotheks-, Informationsund Dokumentationswesen (BID) und es ist kein Zufall, dass diese Branche als erste durchleuchtet wird, sind doch hier die Wurzeln der professionellen Wissensorganisation zu finden. Nun, im Zeitalter der Digitalisierung und des Internets, steht diese Community vor neuen, großen Herausforderungen und Möglichkeiten. Gerade im Umfeld des Semantic Web zeigt sich, dass die Erfahrungen aus dem BID-Bereich einen wichtigen Beitrag leisten können, soll die Entwicklung des Internets der nächsten Generation nicht nur von der Technik geprägt werden. Dieser Band möchte die Neugierde all jener wecken, die sich vor neuen Technologien nicht verschließen, und darauf aufmerksam machen, dass die Möglichkeiten, Information und Wissen zu organisieren, im 21. Jahrhundert gänzlich neue sein werden.

Content

Inhaltsverzeichnis 1. Einleitung 2. Bibliothekspolitik 3. Begriffsdefinitionen 3.1. Bibliothek - 3.2. Archiv - 3.3. Museum - 3.4. Information und Dokumentation - 3.5. Information - 3.6. Semantik und semantische Technologien - 3.7. Ontologie - 3.8. Recall und Precision 4. Bibliotheken aus statistischer Sicht - Kennzahlen 5. Bibliographische Tools 5.1. Austauschformate 5.1.1. MAB / MAB2 - 5.1.2. Allegro-C - 5.1.3. MARC 2 - 5.1.4. Z39.50 - 5.1.5. Weitere Formate 5.2. Kataloge / OPACs 5.2.1. Aleph 500 - 5.2.2. Allegro-C - 5.2.3. WorldCat beta 5.3. Dokumentationssysteme 5.4. Suchmaschinen 5.4.1. Convera und ProTerm - 5.4.2. APA Online Manager - 5.4.3. Google Scholar - 5.4.4. Scirus - 5.4.5. OAIster - 5.4.6. GRACE 5.5. Informationsportale 5.5.1. iPort - 5.5.2. MetaLib - 5.5.3. Vascoda - 5.5.4. Dandelon - 5.5.5. BAM-Portal - 5.5.6. Prometheus 6. Semantische Anreicherung 6.1. Indexierung - 6.2. Klassifikation - 6.3. Thesauri 38 - 6.4. Social Tagging 7. Projekte 7.1. Bibster - 7.2. Open Archives Initiative OAI - 7.3. Renardus - 7.4. Perseus Digital Library - 7.5. JeromeDL - eLibrary with Semantics 8. Semantische Technologien in BAM-InstitutionenÖsterreichs 8.1. Verbundkatalog des Österreichischen Bibliothekenverbunds - 8.2. Bibliotheken Online - WebOPAC der Öffentlichen Bibliotheken - 8.3. Umfrage-Design - 8.4. Auswertung 9. Fazit und Ausblick 10. Quellenverzeichnis 11. Web-Links 12. Anhang Vgl.: http://www.semantic-web.at/file_upload/1_tmpphp154oO0.pdf.

Footnote

Rez. in: Mitt VÖB 60(2007)H.3, S.80-81 (J. Bertram): "Wie aus dem Titel der Publikation hervorgeht, will der Autor eine Bestandsaufnahme zum Einsatz semantischer Technologien im BID-Bereich (Bibliothek - Information - Dokumentation) bzw. BAM-Bereich (Bibliothek - Archiv - Museum) vornehmen. einigem Befremden, dass eines von insgesamt drei Vorwörtern für ein einschlägiges Softwareprodukt wirbt und von einer Firmenmitarbeiterin verfasst worden ist. Nach einer Skizze des gegenwärtigen Standes nationaler und europäischer Bibliothekspolitik folgen kurze Definitionen zu den beteiligten Branchen, zu semantischen Technologien und zu Precision und Recall. Die Ausführungen zu semantischen Technologien hätten durchaus gleich an den Anfang gestellt werden können, schließlich sollen sie ja das Hauptthema der vorliegenden Publikation abgeben. Zudem hätten sie konkreter, trennschärfer und ausführlicher ausfallen können. Der Autor moniert zu Recht das Fehlen einer einheitlichen Auffassung, was unter semantischen Technologien denn nun genau zu verstehen sei. Seine Definition lässt allerdings Fragen offen. So wird z.B. nicht geklärt, was besagte Technologien von den hier auch immer wieder erwähnten semantischen Tools unterscheidet. Das nachfolgende Kapitel über bibliographische Tools vereint eine Aufzählung konkreter Beispiele für Austauschformate, Dokumentationssysteme, Suchmaschinen, Informationsportale und OPACs. Im Anschluss daran stellt der Autor Methoden semantischer Anreicherung (bibliographischer) Daten vor und präsentiert Projekte im Bibliotheksbereich. Der aufzählende Charakter dieses und des vorangestellten Kapitels mag einem schnellen Überblick über die fraglichen Gegenstände dienlich sein, für eine systematische Lektüre eignen sich diese Passagen weniger. Auch wird der Bezug zu semantischen Technologien nicht durchgängig hergestellt.

RSWK

Information und Dokumentation / Semantic Web (GBV)

Subject

Information und Dokumentation / Semantic Web (GBV)

3.5800604E-4 = product of:
  0.0050120843 = sum of:
    0.0050120843 = weight(_text_:information in 3333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050120843 = score(doc=3333,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3333, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3333)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Reports results of a study, prompted by a number of questions which have been raised about the extent to which the DOI meets, or can be developed to meet, the real requirements of the marketplace for a unique identifier of digital content. Develops a series of scenarios to explore future ways in which digital information may be accessed and used and considers the role of unique identification of content in each of them. The business models, selected for the scenarios, must represent to some extent a subjective forecast of what the future might look like. Their purpose is to attempt to illuminate some generic aspects of unique identification that appear likely to be important in future

3.5800604E-4 = product of:
  0.0050120843 = sum of:
    0.0050120843 = weight(_text_:information in 1476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050120843 = score(doc=1476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1476)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Theme

Information Gateway

3.5800604E-4 = product of:
  0.0050120843 = sum of:
    0.0050120843 = weight(_text_:information in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050120843 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Theme

Information Gateway

3.3753135E-4 = product of:
  0.0047254385 = sum of:
    0.0047254385 = weight(_text_:information in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0047254385 = score(doc=2429,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Our catalog should not be called a FRBR catalog perhaps, but instead a "FRBR Inspired catalog." As such our main goal has been "practical findability," we are seeking to support the four identified user tasks of the FRBR model, or to "Search, Identify, Select, and Obtain," rather than to create a FRBR catalog, per se. By encoding as much information as possible in the MODS and MADS records we have created, we believe that useful searching will be supported, that by using unique identifiers for works and authors users will be able to identify that the entity they have located is the desired one, that by encoding expression level information (such as the language of the work, the translator, etc) users will be able to select which expression of a work they are interested in, and that by supplying links to different online manifestations that users will be able to obtain access to a digital copy of a work. This white paper will discuss previous and current efforts by the Perseus Project in creating a FRBRized catalog, including the cataloging workflow, lessons learned during the process and will also seek to place this work in the larger context of research regarding FRBR, cataloging, Library 2.0 and the Semantic Web, and the growing importance of the FRBR model in the face of growing million book digital libraries.

2.9833836E-4 = product of:
  0.004176737 = sum of:
    0.004176737 = weight(_text_:information in 2436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004176737 = score(doc=2436,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2436, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2436)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

RDA provides a set of guidelines and instructions on formulating data to support resource discovery. The data created using RDA to describe a resource are designed to assist users performing the following tasks: find-i.e., to find resources that correspond to the user's stated search criteria: identify-i.e., to confirm that the resource described corresponds to the resource sought, or to distinguish between two or more resources with similar characteristics select-i.e., to select a resource that is appropriate to the user's needs obtain-i.e., to acquire or access the resource described. The data created using RDA to describe an entity associated with a resource (a person, family, corporate body, concept, etc.) are designed to assist users performing the following tasks: find-i.e., to find information on that entity and on resources associated with the entity identify-i.e., to confirm that the entity described corresponds to the entity sought, or to distinguish between two or more entities with similar names, etc. clarify-i.e., to clarify the relationship between two or more such entities, or to clarify the relationship between the entity described and a name by which that entity is known understand-i.e., to understand why a particular name or title, or form of name or title, has been chosen as the preferred name or title for the entity.

2.9833836E-4 = product of:
  0.004176737 = sum of:
    0.004176737 = weight(_text_:information in 2398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004176737 = score(doc=2398,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2398, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2398)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

It may be jumping the gun a bit to review this publication before it is actually published, but we are nothing if not current here at Current Cites, so we will do it anyway (so sue us!). This publication-in-process is a joint effort of the Visual Resources Association and the Digital Library Federation. It aims to "provide guidelines for selecting, ordering, and formatting data used to populate catalog records" relating to cultural works. Although this work is far from finished (Chapters 1, 2, 7, and 9 are available, as well as front and back matter), the authors are making it available so pratictioners can use it and respond with information about how it can be improved to better aid their work. A stated goal is to publish it in print at some point in the future. Besides garnering support from the organizations named above as well as the Getty, the Mellon Foundation and others, the effort is being guided by experienced professionals at the top of their field. Get the point? If you're involved with creating metadata relating to any type of cultural object and/or images of such, this will need to be either on your bookshelf, or bookmarked in your browser, or both

2.3867069E-4 = product of:
  0.0033413896 = sum of:
    0.0033413896 = weight(_text_:information in 1076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033413896 = score(doc=1076,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 1076, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1076)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Die Studie untersucht die Usability der Homepage des Landtags NordrheinWestfalen. Es wird analysiert, wie benutzerfreundlich die Website ist, ob sie effektiv genutzt werden kann und ob die Inhalte der Site den Erwartungen der Benutzer entsprechen. Drei Evaluationsmethoden finden Einsatz: Ein Thinking-Aloud-Test, eine heuristische Evaluation und eine Availability-Untersuchung. Der hier eingesetzte Thinking-Aloud-Test ist ein Benutzertest, bei dem zwanzig Laien und zwanzig Information Professionals zuerst ihre Erwartungen an die Site äußern und dann anhand der Homepage, unter Beobachtung, Aufgaben bearbeiten. Anschließend geben sie anhand eines Fragebogens eine Beurteilung ab. Die heuristische Evaluation ist eine expertenzentrierte Methode. Usability-Experten stellen Checklisten auf, anhand derer eine Homepage untersucht wird. In dieser Studie finden drei Heuristiken Anwendung. Die Availability-Untersuchung der homepageeigenen Suchmaschine ist eine bibliothekarische Evaluationsmethode, die anhand einer Suche nach Webseiten, von denen bekannt ist, dass ihr Angebot aktiv ist, die Qualität der Suchmaschine hinsichtlich der Erreichbarkeit der Dokumente bestimmt. Die drei Methoden ergänzen einander und decken in ihrer Variation einen großen Pool an Usability-Fehlern auf. Die Ergebnisse: Die Benutzer vermissen auf der Homepage besonders Informationen über den Landeshaushalt, eine Liste der Mitarbeiter mit ihren Zuständigkeiten, Hintergrundinformationen zu aktuellen landespolitischen Themen und Diskussionsforen als Kommunikationsmöglichkeit. Im Durchschnitt liegen die Klickhäufigkeiten für das Lösen einer Aufgabe über denen, die für den kürzesten Weg benötigt werden. Die Abbruch-Quote aufgrund einer nicht lösbar erscheinenden Aufgabe beträgt bei 40 Probanden à sechs Aufgaben 13,33% (32 Abbrüche). In der Abschlussbefragung äußern sich die Testpersonen größtenteils zufrieden. Die Ausnahme stellt der Bereich "Navigation" dar. 40% halten die benötigten Links für schwer auffindbar, 45% aller Probanden wissen nicht jederzeit, an welcher Stelle sie sich befinden.