Search (199 results, page 1 of 10)

0.017285403 = product of:
  0.06049891 = sum of:
    0.0057832156 = weight(_text_:web in 2312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0057832156 = score(doc=2312,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.07211407 = fieldWeight in 2312, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2312)
    0.0028983497 = weight(_text_:information in 2312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0028983497 = score(doc=2312,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.0671879 = fieldWeight in 2312, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2312)
    0.033057205 = weight(_text_:kongress in 2312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033057205 = score(doc=2312,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16122791 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.20503402 = fieldWeight in 2312, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2312)
    0.018760135 = weight(_text_:frankfurt in 2312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018760135 = score(doc=2312,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10213336 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1562657 = idf(docFreq=1882, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.18368272 = fieldWeight in 2312, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.1562657 = idf(docFreq=1882, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2312)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

BK

06.04 / Ausbildung, Beruf, Organisationen <Information und Dokumentation>

Classification

06.04 / Ausbildung, Beruf, Organisationen <Information und Dokumentation>

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 31(2004) no.4, S.255-257: (P. Riva): "Cataloguing standardization at the international level can be viewed as proceeding in a series of milestone conferences. This meeting, the first in a series which will cover different regions of the world, will take its place in that progression. The first IFLA Meeting of Experts an an International Cataloguing Code (IME ICC), held July 28-30, 2003 at Die Deutsche Bibliothek in Frankfurt, gathered representatives of almost all European countries as well as three of the four AACR author countries. As explained in the introduction by Barbara Tillett, chair of the IME ICC planning committee, the plan is for five meetings in total. Subsequent meetings are to take place in Buenos Aires, Argentina (held August 17-18, 2004) for Latin America and the Carribean, to be followed by Alexandria, Egypt (2005) for the Middle East, Seoul, South Korea (2006) for Asia, and Durban, South Africa (2007) for Africa. The impetus for planning these meetings was triggered by the 40th anniversary of the Paris Principles, approved at the International Conference an Cataloguing Principles held in 1961. Many will welcome the timely publication of the reports and papers from this important conference in book form. The original conference website (details given an p. 176) which includes most of the same material, is still extant, but the reports and papers gathered into this volume will be referred to by cataloguing rule makers long after the web as we know it has transformed itself into a new (and quite possibly not backwards compatible) environment.
The book is organized into four sections: introduction and results; presentation papers; background papers; and an appendix. The introduction by Barbara Tillett serves as a summary and report of the IME ICC meeting itself. The statement of the purpose of the meeting bears reporting in full (p. 6): "The goal for this meeting was to increase the ability to share cataloguing information worldwide by promoting standards for the content of bibliographic records and authority records used in library catalogues." The next item is a report summarizing the cataloguing Code comparisons prepared prior to the conference. As a mechanism for discussion, 18 codes were compared with the Paris Principles, the extent of compliance or divergence noted and discussed by representatives from the respective rule-making bodies. During the meeting the presentation of the comparisons took up half of the first day, but for the detailed responses one must return to the IME ICC website. The published summary is very dense, and difficult to follow if one is not very familiar with the Paris Principles or the codes being compared. The main outcome of the meeting follows, this is the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (draft, as approved Dec. 19, 2003 by IME ICC participants), accompanied by a useful Glossary. The most important eontribution of this volume is to serve as the permanent and official record of the Statement as it stands after the first IME ICC meeting. Subsequent meetings will surely suggest modifications and enhancements, but this version of the Statement needs to be widely read and commented on. To this end the website also makes available translations of the Statement into 15 European languages, and the glossary into four languages. Compared to the Paris Principles, this statement covers some familiar ground in the choice of access points and forms of names, but its overall scope is broader, explicitly referring to the role of authority records, entities in bibliographic records and relationships. It concludes with an appendix of "Objectives for the construction of cataloguing codes."

RSWK

Alphabetische Katalogisierung / Standardisierung / Internationale Kooperation / Kongress / Frankfurt <Main, 2003>

Subject

Alphabetische Katalogisierung / Standardisierung / Internationale Kooperation / Kongress / Frankfurt <Main, 2003>

0.012034168 = product of:
  0.056159448 = sum of:
    0.028625458 = weight(_text_:web in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028625458 = score(doc=5423,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 5423, 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=5423)
    0.010144223 = weight(_text_:information in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010144223 = score(doc=5423,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 5423, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5423)
    0.017389767 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017389767 = score(doc=5423,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 5423, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5423)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

This article explores recent discussions about appropriate mark-up conventions for library information intended for use on the World Wide Web. In particular, the question of whether the MARC 21 format will continue to be useful and whether the time is right for a full-fledged conversion effort to XML is explored. The author concludes that the MARC format will be relevant well into the future, and its use will not hamper access to bibliographic information via the web. Early XML exploratory efforts carried out at the Stanford University's Lane Medical Library are reported on. Although these efforts are a promising start, much more consultation and investigation is needed to arrive at broadly acceptable standards for XML library information encoding and retrieval.

0.010290484 = product of:
  0.03601669 = sum of:
    0.01445804 = weight(_text_:web in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01445804 = score(doc=1166,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.003622937 = weight(_text_:information in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003622937 = score(doc=1166,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.083984874 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.006210631 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006210631 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.08355226 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.011725084 = weight(_text_:frankfurt in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011725084 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10213336 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1562657 = idf(docFreq=1882, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.114801705 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1562657 = idf(docFreq=1882, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

This article presents an overview of the LEAF project (Linking and Exploring Authority Files)1, which has set out to provide a framework for international, collaborative work in the sector of authority data with respect to authority control. Elaborating the virtues of authority control in today's Web environment is an almost futile exercise, since so much has been said and written about it in the last few years.2 The World Wide Web is generally understood to be poorly structured-both with regard to content and to locating required information. Highly structured databases might be viewed as small islands of precision within this chaotic environment. Though the Web in general or any particular structured database would greatly benefit from increased authority control, it should be noted that our following considerations only refer to authority control with regard to databases of "memory institutions" (i.e., libraries, archives, and museums). Moreover, when talking about authority records, we exclusively refer to personal name authority records that describe a specific person. Although different types of authority records could indeed be used in similar ways to the ones presented in this article, discussing those different types is outside the scope of both the LEAF project and this article. Personal name authority records-as are all other "authorities"-are maintained as separate records and linked to various kinds of descriptive records. Name authority records are usually either kept in independent databases or in separate tables in the database containing the descriptive records. This practice points at a crucial benefit: by linking any number of descriptive records to an authorized name record, the records related to this entity are collocated in the database. Variant forms of the authorized name are referenced in the authority records and thus ensure the consistency of the database while enabling search and retrieval operations that produce accurate results. On one hand, authority control may be viewed as a positive prerequisite of a consistent catalogue; on the other, the creation of new authority records is a very time consuming and expensive undertaking. As a consequence, various models of providing access to existing authority records have emerged: the Library of Congress and the French National Library (Bibliothèque nationale de France), for example, make their authority records available to all via a web-based search service.3 In Germany, the Personal Name Authority File (PND, Personennamendatei4) maintained by the German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek, Frankfurt/Main) offers a different approach to shared access: within a closed network, participating institutions have online access to their pooled data. The number of recent projects and initiatives that have addressed the issue of authority control in one way or another is considerable.5 Two important current initiatives should be mentioned here: The Name Authority Cooperative (NACO) and Virtual International Authority File (VIAF).
NACO was established in 1976 and is hosted by the Library of Congress. At the beginning of 2003, nearly 400 institutions were involved in this undertaking, including 43 institutions from outside the United States.6 Despite the enormous success of NACO and the impressive annual growth of the initiative, there are requirements for participation that form an obstacle for many institutions: they have to follow the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) and employ the MARC217 data format. Participating institutions also have to belong to either OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) or RLG (Research Libraries Group) in order to be able to contribute records, and they have to provide a specified minimum number of authority records per year. A recent proof of concept project of the Library of Congress, OCLC and the German National Library-Virtual International Authority File (VIAF)8-will, in its first phase, test automatic linking of the records of the Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF) and the German Personal Name Authority File by using matching algorithms and software developed by OCLC. The results are expected to form the basis of a "Virtual International Authority File". The project will then test the maintenance of the virtual authority file by employing the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)9 to harvest the metadata for new, updated, and deleted records. When using the "Virtual International Authority File" a cataloguer will be able to check the system to see whether the authority record he wants to establish already exists. The final phase of the project will test possibilities for displaying records in the preferred language and script of the end user. Currently, there are still some clear limitations associated with the ways in which authority records are used by memory institutions. One of the main problems has to do with limited access: generally only large institutions or those that are part of a library network have unlimited online access to permanently updated authority records. Smaller institutions outside these networks usually have to fall back on less efficient ways of obtaining authority data, or have no access at all. Cross-domain sharing of authority data between libraries, archives, museums and other memory institutions simply does not happen at present. Public users are, by and large, not even aware that such things as name authority records exist and are excluded from access to these information resources.

0.010273016 = product of:
  0.07191111 = sum of:
    0.0057966993 = weight(_text_:information in 2790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0057966993 = score(doc=2790,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 2790, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2790)
    0.06611441 = weight(_text_:kongress in 2790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06611441 = score(doc=2790,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16122791 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.41006804 = fieldWeight in 2790, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2790)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Treffpunkt Standardisierung - Projekte, Konzepte und Kooperationen - lautete der Titel der Veranstaltung des Standardisierungsausschusses beim 2. Leipziger Kongress für Information und Bibliothek »Information Macht Bildung«, die vom Vorsitzenden Berndt Dugall moderiert wurde. Den größten Raum innerhalb der Veranstaltung nahm der Themenkomplex »Umstieg auf internationale Formate und Regelwerke (MARC21, AACR2)« ein. Zunächst stellte die Projektbearbeiterin Luise Hoffmann die Ausgangslage des Projektes sowie bisher vorliegende Ergebnisse aus dem von der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) geförderten Projekt vor und ging dabei auf einige Projektschwerpunkte ein: Luise Hoffmann stellte einige Punkte aus dem Regelwerks- und Formatabgleich sowie der Untersuchung über die Konsequenzen eines Umstiegs auf die laufende Katalogisierung vor und ging dann ausführlicher auf mögliche Auswirkungen eines Umstiegs auf die Informationsversorgung des Benutzers ein, einen Aspekt, dem im DFG-Antrag eine besondere, hervorgehobene Bedeutung beigemessen wird. In erster Linie wurden die Strategien der Benutzer zur Literatursuche untersucht. Ziel war es, herauszufinden, ob und welche Auswirkungen ein Umstieg auf die Benutzung des örtlichen Bibliothekskatalogs haben würde. Hierzu wurde zunächst die Suchstrategie von Benutzern ermittelt, um anschließend analysieren zu können, ob diese Strategie in einem AACR-MARC-basierten Katalog erfolgreicher oder weniger erfolgreich gewesen wäre. Da die zunehmende Literaturrecherche im Internet möglicherweise das Suchverhalten in einem OPAC beeinflusst, wurde zusätzlich die Suchstrategie im Internet erfragt. Zur Ermittlung der Suchstrategie wurde ein Fragebogen entworfen und in Der Deutschen Bibliothek getestet. Anhand der Deutschen Bibliotheksstatistik wurden Bibliotheken unter den Gesichtspunkten der Nutzerfrequenz und der Bestandsgröße ausgewählt und angefragt, ob sie bereit wären, den Fragebogen in ihrer Bibliothek auszulegen. Nachdem sich zehn Bibliotheken bereit erklärt hatten, wurden für die endgültige Befragung einige spezielle Fragen zu Suchbegriffen an die jeweiligen Bibliotheks-OPACs angepasst, da Formulierungen und Bezeichnungen wie Person, Autor, Verfasser u. dgl. in den Bibliothekskatalogen voneinander abweichen können. Als erstes Ergebnis nach Auswertung der Fragebögen aus drei Universitätsbibliotheken konnte festgestellt werden, dass Benutzer überwiegend unter Titelstichwörtern und Personen suchen und dabei Namensformen verwenden, die ihnen geläufig sind. Ein großer Teil der Benutzer weiß der Umfrage zufolge nicht, wie man den Band eines mehrbändigen Werkes sucht, und fast die Hälfte aller Befragten sucht nach Aufsätzen von Sammelwerken. Benutzer unterscheiden überwiegend bei ihrer Suche nicht, ob sie in einem deutschen oder einem ausländischen Katalog recherchieren. Um zu einheitlichen Suchergebnissen bei der Suche in deutschen und ausländischen Katalogen zu gelangen, sollte eine Annäherung der Standards angestrebt werden.

0.0102489805 = product of:
  0.07174286 = sum of:
    0.024842525 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024842525 = score(doc=4578,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 4578, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4578)
    0.046900336 = weight(_text_:frankfurt in 4578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046900336 = score(doc=4578,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10213336 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1562657 = idf(docFreq=1882, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.45920682 = fieldWeight in 4578, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1562657 = idf(docFreq=1882, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4578)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Imprint

Frankfurt : INDEKS

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.010225464 = product of:
  0.04771883 = sum of:
    0.002928385 = weight(_text_:information in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002928385 = score(doc=2434,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.06788416 = fieldWeight in 2434, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2434)
    0.040906206 = weight(_text_:kongress in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040906206 = score(doc=2434,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16122791 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.25371665 = fieldWeight in 2434, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2434)
    0.003884241 = product of:
      0.011652723 = sum of:
        0.011652723 = weight(_text_:22 in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011652723 = score(doc=2434,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08605168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2434, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2434)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Content

- Projekt Umstieg auf internationale Formate und Regelwerke (MARC21, AACR2) Das Projekt Umstieg auf internationale Formate und Regelwerke (MARC21, AACR2) stand zum Zeitpunkt der Sitzung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft kurz vor seinem Abschluss. Im Rahmen der Veranstaltung des Standardisierungsausschusses beim 2. Leipziger Kongress für Information und Bibliothek wurden die wesentlichen Projektergebnisse vorgestellt. Aufgrund der vorliegenden Informationen gehen die Mitglieder der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme davon aus, dass das finanzielle Argument bei der anstehenden Entscheidung nicht mehr im Vordergrund stehen kann. Auch wenn davon ausgegangen wird, dass eine klare Umstiegsentscheidung durch den Standardisierungsausschuss derzeit politisch nicht durchsetzbar sei, sehen die Mitglieder der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme die Entwicklung durch die Projektergebnisse positiv. Durch die Diskussion wurden Defizite des deutschen Regelwerks und der Verbundpraxis offen gelegt und verschiedene Neuerungen angestoßen. Zur Verbesserung des Datentausches untereinander sehen die Verbundzentralen unabhängig von einer Entscheidung des Standardisierungsausschusses die Notwendigkeit, ihre Datenbestände zu homogenisieren und Hierarchien abzubauen bzw. die Verknüpfungsstrukturen zu vereinfachen. Auch die Entwicklung der Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) muss in diese Überlegungen einbezogen werden. Die Formate müssen dahingehend entwickelt werden, dass alle relevanten Informationen im Titelsatz transportiert werden können. Es wird eine Konvergenz von Regelwerk und Format angestrebt.

0.01007836 = product of:
  0.04703235 = sum of:
    0.017349645 = weight(_text_:web in 3967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017349645 = score(doc=3967,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3967, 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=3967)
    0.010040177 = weight(_text_:information in 3967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010040177 = score(doc=3967,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3967, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3967)
    0.019642524 = product of:
      0.058927573 = sum of:
        0.058927573 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058927573 = score(doc=3967,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.117538005 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            0.5013491 = fieldWeight in 3967, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3967)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

The Europeana Data Model (EDM) is a new approach towards structuring and representing data delivered to Europeana by the various contributing cultural heritage institutions. The model aims at greater expressivity and flexibility in comparison to the current Europeana Semantic Elements (ESE), which it is destined to replace. The design principles underlying the EDM are based on the core principles and best practices of the Semantic Web and Linked Data efforts to which Europeana wants to contribute. The model itself builds upon established standards like RDF(S), OAI-ORE, SKOS, and Dublin Core. It acts as a common top-level ontology which retains original data models and information perspectives while at the same time enabling interoperability. The paper elaborates on the aforementioned aspects and the design principles which drove the development of the EDM.

Content

Vortrag im Rahmen der Session 93. Cataloguing der WORLD LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CONGRESS: 76TH IFLA GENERAL CONFERENCE AND ASSEMBLY, 10-15 August 2010, Gothenburg, Sweden - 149. Information Technology, Cataloguing, Classification and Indexing with Knowledge Management

Theme

Information Gateway

Year

2010

0.009444917 = product of:
  0.13222882 = sum of:
    0.13222882 = weight(_text_:kongress in 3865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13222882 = score(doc=3865,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16122791 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.8201361 = fieldWeight in 3865, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3865)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

RSWK

Alphabetische Katalogisierung / Standardisierung / Internationale Kooperation / Kongress / Buenos Aires <2004>

Subject

Alphabetische Katalogisierung / Standardisierung / Internationale Kooperation / Kongress / Buenos Aires <2004>

0.009444917 = product of:
  0.13222882 = sum of:
    0.13222882 = weight(_text_:kongress in 2311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13222882 = score(doc=2311,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16122791 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.8201361 = fieldWeight in 2311, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2311)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

RSWK

Alphabetische Katalogisierung / Standardisierung / Internationale Kooperation / Kongress / Pretoria <2007>

Subject

Alphabetische Katalogisierung / Standardisierung / Internationale Kooperation / Kongress / Pretoria <2007>

0.009444917 = product of:
  0.13222882 = sum of:
    0.13222882 = weight(_text_:kongress in 2313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13222882 = score(doc=2313,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16122791 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.8201361 = fieldWeight in 2313, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2313)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

RSWK

Alphabetische Katalogisierung / Standardisierung / Internationale Kooperation / Kongress / Kairo <2005>

Subject

Alphabetische Katalogisierung / Standardisierung / Internationale Kooperation / Kongress / Kairo <2005>

0.009444917 = product of:
  0.13222882 = sum of:
    0.13222882 = weight(_text_:kongress in 2314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13222882 = score(doc=2314,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16122791 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.8201361 = fieldWeight in 2314, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2314)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

RSWK

Alphabetische Katalogisierung / Standardisierung / Internationale Kooperation / Kongress / Seoul <2006>

Subject

Alphabetische Katalogisierung / Standardisierung / Internationale Kooperation / Kongress / Seoul <2006>

0.008279429 = product of:
  0.038637333 = sum of:
    0.0102233775 = weight(_text_:web in 3556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0102233775 = score(doc=3556,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.12748088 = fieldWeight in 3556, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3556)
    0.019630795 = weight(_text_:indexierung in 3556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019630795 = score(doc=3556,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13215348 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.14854543 = fieldWeight in 3556, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3556)
    0.008783158 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008783158 = score(doc=3556,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.11816074 = fieldWeight in 3556, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3556)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Content

Die Deutsche Bibliothek Retrieval von Content In dem Projekt wird angestrebt, Verfahren zu entwickeln und einzuführen, die automatisch und ohne intellektuelle Bearbeitung für das Content-Retrieval ausreichend Sucheinstiege bieten. Dabei kann es sich um die Suche nach Inhalten von Volltexten, digitalen Abbildern, Audiofiles, Videofiles etc. von in Der Deutschen Bibliothek archivierten digitalen Ressourcen oder digitalen Surrogaten archivierter analoger Ressourcen (z. B. OCR-Ergebnisse) handeln. Inhalte, die in elektronischer Form vorhanden sind, aber dem InternetBenutzer Der Deutschen Bibliothek bisher nicht oder nur eingeschränkt zur Verfügung stehen, sollen in möglichst großem Umfang und mit möglichst großem Komfort nutzbar gemacht werden. Darüber hinaus sollen Inhalte benutzt werden, die für ein in ILTIS katalogisiertes Objekt beschreibenden Charakter haben, um auf das beschriebene Objekt zu verweisen. Die höchste Priorität liegt dabei auf der Erschließung von Inhalten in Textformaten. In einem ersten Schritt wurde der Volltext aller Zeitschriften, die im Projekt "Exilpresse digital" digitalisiert wurden, für eine erweiterte Suche genutzt. In einem nächsten Schritt soll die PSI-Software für die Volltextindexierung von Abstracts evaluiert werden. MILOS Mit dem Einsatz von MILOS eröffnet sich die Möglichkeit, nicht oder wenig sachlich erschlossene Bestände automatisch mit ergänzenden Inhaltserschließungsinformationen zu versehen, der Schwerpunkt liegt dabei auf der Freitext-Indexierung. Das bereits in einigen Bibliotheken eingesetzte System, das inzwischen von Der Deutschen Bibliothek für Deutschland lizenziert wurde, wurde in eine UNIX-Version überführt und angepasst. Inzwischen wurde nahezu der gesamte Bestand rückwirkend behandelt, die Daten werden im Gesamt-OPAC für die Recherche zur Verfügung stehen. Die in einer XMLStruktur abgelegten Indexeinträge werden dabei vollständig indexiert und zugänglich gemacht. Ein weiterer Entwicklungsschritt wird in dem Einsatz von MILOS im Online-Verfahren liegen.
Hessisches BibliotheksinformationsSystem (HEBIS) Personennamendatei (PND) Vor dem Hintergrund der Harmonisierungsbestrebungen bei den Normdateien hat der HeBIS-Verbundrat nach erneuter Diskussion mehrheitlich entschieden, künftig neben SWD und GKD auch die PND als in HeBIS integrierte Normdatei obligatorisch zu nutzen. Im Zuge der wachsenden Vernetzung der regionalen Verbundsysteme kommt der Homogenität der Datensätze eine zunehmend wichtigere Bedeutung zu. Konkret wird dies speziell für HeBIS mit dem Produktionsbeginn des HeBIS-Portals und der integrierten verbundübergreifenden Fernleihe. Nur wenn die Verfasserrecherche in den einzelnen Verbunddatenbanken auf weitgehend einheitliche Datensätze einschließlich Verweisungsformen trifft, kann der Benutzer gute Trefferergebnisse erwarten und damit seine Chancen erhöhen, die gewünschte Literatur über Fernleihe bestellen zu können. Das Gesamtkonzept ist ausgelegt auf eine pragmatische und aufwandsreduzierte Vorgehensweise. Mit der Umsetzung wurde begonnen. Hochschulbibliothekszentrum des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (HBZ) FAST-Suchmaschine Das HBZ hat die Suchmaschinentechnologie des norwegischen Herstellers FAST lizenziert. Ziel ist es, die Produkte des HBZ mit Hilfe innovativer Suchmaschinentechnologien in einer neuen Ausrichtung zu präsentieren. Die Präsentation soll einen schnellen Recherche-Zugang zu den NRWVerbunddaten mittels FAST-Suchmaschinentechnologie mit folgenden Eigenschaften beinhalten: - Eine Web-Oberfläche, um für Laien eine schnelle Literatursuche anbieten zu können. - Eine Web-Oberfläche, um für Expertinnen und Experten eine schnelle Literatur-Suche anbieten zu können. - Präsentation von Zusatzfunktionen, die in gängigen Bibliothekskatalogen so nicht vorhanden sind. - Schaffung einer Zugriffsmöglichkeit für den KVK auf die Verbunddaten mit sehr kurzen Antwortzeiten Digitale Bibliothek Die Mehrzahl der Bibliotheken ist inzwischen auf Release 5 umgezogen. Einige befinden sich noch im Bearbeitungsstatus. Von den letzten drei Bibliotheken liegen inzwischen die Umzugsanträge vor. Durch die Umstrukturierung der RLB Koblenz zum LBZ Rheinland-Pfalz werden die Einzelsichten der RLB Koblenz, PLB Speyer und der Bipontina in Zweibrücken mit den Büchereistellen Koblenz und Neustadt zu einer Sicht verschmolzen.

0.006391353 = product of:
  0.04473947 = sum of:
    0.03469929 = weight(_text_:web in 3918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03469929 = score(doc=3918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 3918, 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=3918)
    0.010040177 = weight(_text_:information in 3918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010040177 = score(doc=3918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3918)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

0.006220379 = product of:
  0.029028434 = sum of:
    0.017349645 = weight(_text_:web in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017349645 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3841, 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=3841)
    0.0050200885 = weight(_text_:information in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050200885 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3841, 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=3841)
    0.006658699 = product of:
      0.019976096 = sum of:
        0.019976096 = weight(_text_:22 in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019976096 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08605168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3841, 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=3841)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

This entry describes the development of the MARC Communications format. After a brief overview of the initial 10 years it describes the succeeding phases of development up to the present. This takes the reader through the expansion of the format for all types of bibliographic data and for a multiple character scripts. At the same time a large business community was developing that offered products based on the format to the library community. The introduction of the Internet in the 1990s and the Web technology brought new opportunities and challenges and the format was adapted to this new environment. There has been a great deal of international adoption of the format that has continued into the 2000s. More recently new syntaxes for MARC 21 and models are being explored.

Date

27. 8.2011 14:22:38

Source

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

0.0060943845 = product of:
  0.04266069 = sum of:
    0.03541482 = weight(_text_:web in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03541482 = score(doc=1467,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
    0.007245874 = weight(_text_:information in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007245874 = score(doc=1467,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

XML (eXtensible Markup Language) is fast gaining favor as the universal format for data and document exchange -- in effect becoming the lingua franca of the Information Age. Currently, "library information" is at a particular disadvantage on the rapidly evolving World Wide Web. Why? Despite libraries'explorations of web catalogs, scanning projects, digital data repositories, and creation of web pages galore, there remains a digital divide. The core of libraries' data troves are stored in proprietary formats of integrated library systems (ILS) and in the complex and arcane MARC formats -- both restricted chiefly to the province of technical services and systems librarians. Even they are hard-pressed to extract and integrate this wealth of data with resources from outside this rarefied environment. Segregation of library information underlies many difficulties: producing standard bibliographic citations from MARC data, automatically creating new materials lists (including new web resources) on a particular topic, exchanging data with our vendors, and even migrating from one ILS to another. Why do we continue to hobble our potential by embracing these self-imposed limitations? Most ILSs began in libraries, which soon recognized the pitfalls of do-it-yourself solutions. Thus, we wisely anticipated the necessity for standards. However, with the advent of the web, we soon found "our" collections and a flood of new resources appearing in digital format on opposite sides of the divide. If we do not act quickly to integrate library resources with mainstream web resources, we are in grave danger of becoming marginalized

0.0059066126 = product of:
  0.041346285 = sum of:
    0.031409275 = weight(_text_:indexierung in 2197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031409275 = score(doc=2197,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13215348 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.23767269 = fieldWeight in 2197, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2197)
    0.00993701 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00993701 = score(doc=2197,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 2197, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2197)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

- Zielsetzung - Bevor mit der Ausarbeitung einer Lösung für originalschriftliche Eingaben im Österreichischen Bibliothekenverbund begonnen werden konnte, waren bestimmte Rahmenbedingungen festzulegen. Hohe Priorität sollte einer ökonomischen Katalogisierung eingeräumt werden (effiziente Arbeitsabläufe, einfache und übersichtliche Kategorienstrukturen, unterstützende Satzschablonen). Auch von systembibliothekarischer und systemadministrativer Seite her sollte der Aufwand möglichst gering gehalten werden (z.B. Anpassungsumfang bei der Parametrisierung, Anzahl der zu ändernden Tabellen). Weiters wurden Aleph 500-Anwender, die außerhalb des Österreichischen Bibliothekenverbundes das MAB-Format verwenden, in die Diskussion miteingebunden, um eine möglichst einheitliche Lösung zu finden (Import- und Exportschnittstellen müssten dann von der Herstellerfirma Ex Libris nur einmal adaptiert werden). Außerdem wurde vorerst festgelegt, dass die neu hinzukommenden originalschriftlichen Texte lediglich für die Anzeige dienen sollten. Indexierung und Retrieval sind hingegen hier nicht vorgesehen. Basis für die zu implementierende Lösung war nahe liegender Weise der vorliegende MAB-Entwurf (schließlich ist das im Österreichischen Bibliothekenverbund verwendete Internformat bis auf einige kleinere Adaptionen und eine durchgängige Subfieldstruktur nahezu ident mit dem MABFormat). Dennoch sahen wir keine Notwendigkeit, uns um jeden Preis an diesen Entwurf halten zu müssen, falls er sich als unnötig kompliziert und ineffizient erweisen sollte.

0.0057269144 = product of:
  0.0400884 = sum of:
    0.015495556 = weight(_text_:information in 7679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015495556 = score(doc=7679,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.3592092 = fieldWeight in 7679, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7679)
    0.024592843 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024592843 = score(doc=7679,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 7679, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7679)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Discusses the issues involved in the development of data formats for computerized information retrieval systems. Integrated databases capable of holding both bibliographic and factual information, in a single database structure, are more convenient for searching and retrieval by end users. Several bibliographic formats have been developed and are used for these bibliographic control puposes. Reviews features of 6 major bibliographic formats: USMARC, UKMARC, UNIMARC, CCF, MIBIS and ABNCD are reviewed. Only 2 formats: CCF and ABNCD are capable of holding both bibliographic and factual information and supporting the design of integrated databases. The comparison suggests that, while CCF makes more detailed provision for bibliographic information, ABNCD makes better provision for factual information such as profiles of institutions, information systems, projects and human experts

Source

Information development. 12(1996) no.4, S.218-223

0.005693029 = product of:
  0.039851204 = sum of:
    0.010040177 = weight(_text_:information in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010040177 = score(doc=3008,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3008, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3008)
    0.029811028 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029811028 = score(doc=3008,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 3008, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3008)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.00568518 = product of:
  0.07959252 = sum of:
    0.07959252 = weight(_text_:frankfurt in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07959252 = score(doc=256,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10213336 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1562657 = idf(docFreq=1882, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.77929986 = fieldWeight in 256, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1562657 = idf(docFreq=1882, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=256)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Imprint

Frankfurt a.M. : DGD

Source

9. Online-Frühjahrstagung der Online-Benutzergruppe der DGD, Frankfurt am Main, 12.-14.5.1987: Vorträge

0.005538526 = product of:
  0.03876968 = sum of:
    0.028625458 = weight(_text_:web in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028625458 = score(doc=5896,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 5896, 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=5896)
    0.010144223 = weight(_text_:information in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010144223 = score(doc=5896,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This paper proposes the use of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) as a language for modelling ontologies for Web resources and the knowledge contained within them. To provide a mechanism for serialising and processing object diagrams representing knowledge, a pair of XSI-T stylesheets have been developed to map from XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) encodings of class diagrams to corresponding RDF schemas and to Java classes representing the concepts in the ontologies. The Java code includes methods for marshalling and unmarshalling object-oriented information between in-memory data structures and RDF serialisations of that information. This provides a convenient mechanism for Java applications to share knowledge on the Web

Source

Journal of digital information. 1(2001) no.8