Search (31 results, page 2 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Stock, W.G."
  1. Stock, W.G.: Concepts and semantic relations in information science (2010) 0.00 
    0.0016647738 = product of:
  0.014982964 = sum of:
    0.014982964 = product of:
      0.029965928 = sum of:
        0.029965928 = weight(_text_:web in 4008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029965928 = score(doc=4008,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 4008, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4008)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Concept-based information retrieval and knowledge representation are in need of a theory of concepts and semantic relations. Guidelines for the construction and maintenance of knowledge organization systems (KOS) (such as ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 in the U.S.A. or DIN 2331:1980 in Germany) do not consider results of concept theory and theory of relations to the full extent. They are not able to unify the currently different worlds of traditional controlled vocabularies, of the social web (tagging and folksonomies) and of the semantic web (ontologies). Concept definitions as well as semantic relations are based on epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, hermeneutics, pragmatism, and critical theory). A concept is determined via its intension and extension as well as by definition. We will meet the problem of vagueness by introducing prototypes. Some important definitions are concept explanations (after Aristotle) and the definition of family resemblances (in the sense of Wittgenstein). We will model concepts as frames (according to Barsalou). The most important paradigmatic relation in KOS is hierarchy, which must be arranged into different classes: Hyponymy consists of taxonomy and simple hyponymy, meronymy consists of many different part-whole-relations. For practical application purposes, the transitivity of the given relation is very important. Unspecific associative relations are of little help to our focused applications and should be replaced by generalizable and domain-specific relations. We will discuss the reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity of paradigmatic relations as well as the appearance of specific semantic relations in the different kinds of KOS (folksonomies, nomenclatures, classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies). Finally, we will pick out KOS as a central theme of the Semantic Web.
  2. Stock, W.G.: On relevance distributions (2006) 0.00 
    0.0015378521 = product of:
  0.013840669 = sum of:
    0.013840669 = product of:
      0.027681338 = sum of:
        0.027681338 = weight(_text_:web in 5116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027681338 = score(doc=5116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 5116, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5116)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    There are at least three possible ways that documents are distributed by relevance: informetric (power law), inverse logistic, and dichotomous. The nature of the type of distribution has implications for the construction of relevance ranking algorithms for search engines, for automated (blind) relevance feedback, for user behavior when using Web search engines, for combining of outputs of search engines for metasearch, for topic detection and tracking, and for the methodology of evaluation of information retrieval systems.
  3. Stock, W.G.: Informationswissenschaft interdisziplinär (2012) 0.00 
    0.0015378521 = product of:
  0.013840669 = sum of:
    0.013840669 = product of:
      0.027681338 = sum of:
        0.027681338 = weight(_text_:web in 559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027681338 = score(doc=559,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 559, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=559)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Einleitungsartikel zu einem Themenheft. Informationswissenschaft umfasst als Kerndisziplinen Information Retrieval, Wissensrepräsentation, Informetrie (einschließlich Web Science), Wissensmanagement und die Erforschung von Informations- bzw. Wissensgesellschaft und der Informationsmärkte (Stock & Stock, 2012). In vielen Forschungsprojekten befassen sich Informationswissenschaftler mit Themen, die auch von anderen Wissenschaftsdisziplinen bearbeitet werden. Informationswissenschaft ist also durchaus (auch) eine interdisziplinäre Angelegenheit. Dieses Themenheft von IWP stellt die Interdisziplinarität von Informationswissenschaft anhand von Beispielen der Forschungsergebnisse aus Düsseldorf in den Vordergrund.
  4. Stock, W.G.; Weber, S.: Facets of informetrics : Preface (2006) 0.00 
    0.001331819 = product of:
  0.011986371 = sum of:
    0.011986371 = product of:
      0.023972742 = sum of:
        0.023972742 = weight(_text_:web in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023972742 = score(doc=76,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.24981049 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    According to Jean M. Tague-Sutcliffe "informetrics" is "the study of the quantitative aspects of information in any form, not just records or bibliographies, and in any social group, not just scientists" (Tague-Sutcliffe, 1992, 1). Leo Egghe also defines "informetrics" in a very broad sense. "(W)e will use the term' informetrics' as the broad term comprising all-metrics studies related to information science, including bibliometrics (bibliographies, libraries,...), scientometrics (science policy, citation analysis, research evaluation,...), webometrics (metrics of the web, the Internet or other social networks such as citation or collaboration networks), ..." (Egghe, 2005b,1311). According to Concepcion S. Wilson "informetrics" is "the quantitative study of collections of moderatesized units of potentially informative text, directed to the scientific understanding of information processes at the social level" (Wilson, 1999, 211). We should add to Wilson's units of text also digital collections of images, videos, spoken documents and music. Dietmar Wolfram divides "informetrics" into two aspects, "system-based characteristics that arise from the documentary content of IR systems and how they are indexed, and usage-based characteristics that arise how users interact with system content and the system interfaces that provide access to the content" (Wolfram, 2003, 6). We would like to follow Tague-Sutcliffe, Egghe, Wilson and Wolfram (and others, for example Björneborn & Ingwersen, 2004) and call this broad research of empirical information science "informetrics". Informetrics includes therefore all quantitative studies in information science. If a scientist performs scientific investigations empirically, e.g. on information users' behavior, on scientific impact of academic journals, on the development of the patent application activity of a company, on links of Web pages, on the temporal distribution of blog postings discussing a given topic, on availability, recall and precision of retrieval systems, on usability of Web sites, and so on, he or she contributes to informetrics. We see three subject areas in information science in which such quantitative research takes place, - information users and information usage, - evaluation of information systems, - information itself, Following Wolfram's article, we divide his system-based characteristics into the "information itself "-category and the "information system"-category. Figure 1 is a simplistic graph of subjects and research areas of informetrics as an empirical information science.
  5. Stock, W.G.: Informationswirtschaft : Management externen Wissens (2000) 0.00 
    0.001153389 = product of:
  0.010380501 = sum of:
    0.010380501 = product of:
      0.020761002 = sum of:
        0.020761002 = weight(_text_:web in 3688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020761002 = score(doc=3688,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3688, 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=3688)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Content
    Enthält die Kapitel: (1) Informationswirtschaft in der Informationsgesellschaft (2) Informationen und Informationskanäle (3) Hilfsmittel der Wirtschaftsdokumentation: Klassifikation und Thesaurus (4) Retrieval von elektronischen Informationen: Techniken und Strategien (5) Data Mining bei externen Informationen (6) Automatische Indexierung (7) Suchen und Browsen im World Wide Web (8) Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Informationen: Literaturnachweise und Volltexte (9) Ergebnisse der Marktforschung (10) Wirtschaftsnachrichten: Agenturmeldungen - Zeitungen - Newsletter - Pressearchive (11) Betriebswirtschaftliche Unternehmensinformationen (12) Ausschreibungen und Geschäftsanbahnungen (13) 'Selbstdarstellungen' von Unternehmen: Geschäftsberichte und Homepages (14) Gesetze und Urteile (15) Gewerbliche Schutzrechte als Wirtschaftsinformationen: Patente, Gebrauchsmuster, Marken, Geschmacksmuster (16) Forschungs- und Entwicklungsaktivitäten von Unternehmen (17) Personenbezogene Informationen in Datenbanken (18) Wirtschaftsstatistische Zeitreihen (19) Integration externer Informationen in das betriebliche Informationssystem (20) Fallstudien
  6. Peters, I.; Stock, W.G.: Folksonomies in Wissensrepräsentation und Information Retrieval (2008) 0.00 
    0.001153389 = product of:
  0.010380501 = sum of:
    0.010380501 = product of:
      0.020761002 = sum of:
        0.020761002 = weight(_text_:web in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020761002 = score(doc=1597,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1597, 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=1597)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Die populären Web 2.0-Dienste werden von Prosumern - Produzenten und gleichsam Konsumenten - nicht nur dazu genutzt, Inhalte zu produzieren, sondern auch, um sie inhaltlich zu erschließen. Folksonomies erlauben es dem Nutzer, Dokumente mit eigenen Schlagworten, sog. Tags, zu beschreiben, ohne dabei auf gewisse Regeln oder Vorgaben achten zu müssen. Neben einigen Vorteilen zeigen Folksonomies aber auch zahlreiche Schwächen (u. a. einen Mangel an Präzision). Um diesen Nachteilen größtenteils entgegenzuwirken, schlagen wir eine Interpretation der Tags als natürlichsprachige Wörter vor. Dadurch ist es uns möglich, Methoden des Natural Language Processing (NLP) auf die Tags anzuwenden und so linguistische Probleme der Tags zu beseitigen. Darüber hinaus diskutieren wir Ansätze und weitere Vorschläge (Tagverteilungen, Kollaboration und akteurspezifische Aspekte) hinsichtlich eines Relevance Rankings von getaggten Dokumenten. Neben Vorschlägen auf ähnliche Dokumente ("more like this!") erlauben Folksonomies auch Hinweise auf verwandte Nutzer und damit auf Communities ("more like me!").
  7. Stock, W.G.: Hochschulmanagement, Information Appliances, Fairness als Grundsatz : Information und Mobilität (2002) 0.00 
    0.001106661 = product of:
  0.009959949 = sum of:
    0.009959949 = product of:
      0.019919898 = sum of:
        0.019919898 = weight(_text_:22 in 1364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019919898 = score(doc=1364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1364, 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=1364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Date
    22. 2.2003 19:39:36
  8. Stock, W.G.: Informational cities : analysis and construction of cities in the knowledge society (2011) 0.00 
    0.001106661 = product of:
  0.009959949 = sum of:
    0.009959949 = product of:
      0.019919898 = sum of:
        0.019919898 = weight(_text_:22 in 4452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019919898 = score(doc=4452,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4452, 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=4452)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Date
    3. 7.2011 19:22:49
  9. Bredemeier, W.; Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: ¬Die Branche elektronischer Geschäftsinformationen in Deutschland 2000/2001 (2001) 0.00 
    9.611576E-4 = product of:
  0.008650418 = sum of:
    0.008650418 = product of:
      0.017300837 = sum of:
        0.017300837 = weight(_text_:web in 621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017300837 = score(doc=621,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 621, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=621)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Content
    Der deutsche Markt für Elektronische Informationsdienste im Jahre 2000 - Ergebnisse einer Umsatzerhebung - Von Willi Bredemeier: - Abgesicherte Methodologie unter Berücksichtigung der Spezifika des EIS-Marktes und der aktuellen Entwicklung - teilweise Vergleichbarkeit der Daten ab 1989 - Weitgehende quantitative Markttransparenz, da der Leser die Aggregationen der Markt- und Teilmarktdaten aus einzelwirtschaftlichen Daten voll nachvollziehen kann - 93 zum Teil ausführliche Tabellen vorwiegend zu einzelnen Informationsanbietern unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Geschäftsjahre 2000 und 1999, unterteilt in die Bereiche Gesamtmarkt für Elektronische Informationsdienste, Datev, Realtime-Finanzinformationen, Nachrichtenagenturen, Kreditinformationen, Firmen- und Produktinformationen, weitere Wirtschaftsinformationen, Rechtsinformationen, Wissenschaftlich-technisch-medizinische Informationen - Intellectual Property, Konsumentendienste, Nachbarmärkte - Analyse aktueller Markttrends. Qualität professioneller Firmeninformationen im World Wide Web - Von Mechtild Stock und Wolfgang G. Stock: - Weiterführung der Qualitätsdiskussion und Entwicklung eines Systems von Qualitätskriterien für Informationsangebote, bezogen auf Firmeninformationen im Internet - "Qualitätspanel" für die Bereiche Bonitätsinformationen, Firmenkurzdossiers, Produktinformationen und Adressinformationen mit den Anbietern Bürgel, Creditreform, Dun & Bradstreet Deutschland, ABC online, ALLECO, Hoppenstedt Firmendatenbank, Who is Who in Multimedia, Kompass Deutschland, Sachon Industriedaten, Wer liefert was?, AZ Bertelsmann, Schober.com - Hochdifferenzierte Tests, die den Kunden Hilfen bei der Auswahl zwischen Angeboten und den Anbietern Hinweise auf Maßnahmen zu qualitativen Verbesserungen geben - Detaillierte Informationen über eingesetzte Systeme der Branchen- und Produktklassifikationen - Rankings der Firmeninformationsanbieter insgesamt sowie nach Datenbasen, Retrievalsystemen und Websites, Detailinformationen zu allen Qualitätsdimensionen
  10. Peters, I.; Stock, W.G.: Power tags in information retrieval (2010) 0.00 
    9.611576E-4 = product of:
  0.008650418 = sum of:
    0.008650418 = product of:
      0.017300837 = sum of:
        0.017300837 = weight(_text_:web in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017300837 = score(doc=865,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Many Web 2.0 services (including Library 2.0 catalogs) make use of folksonomies. The purpose of this paper is to cut off all tags in the long tail of a document-specific tag distribution. The remaining tags at the beginning of a tag distribution are considered power tags and form a new, additional search option in information retrieval systems. Design/methodology/approach - In a theoretical approach the paper discusses document-specific tag distributions (power law and inverse-logistic shape), the development of such distributions (Yule-Simon process and shuffling theory) and introduces search tags (besides the well-known index tags) as a possibility for generating tag distributions. Findings - Search tags are compatible with broad and narrow folksonomies and with all knowledge organization systems (e.g. classification systems and thesauri), while index tags are only applicable in broad folksonomies. Based on these findings, the paper presents a sketch of an algorithm for mining and processing power tags in information retrieval systems. Research limitations/implications - This conceptual approach is in need of empirical evaluation in a concrete retrieval system. Practical implications - Power tags are a new search option for retrieval systems to limit the amount of hits. Originality/value - The paper introduces power tags as a means for enhancing the precision of search results in information retrieval systems that apply folksonomies, e.g. catalogs in Library 2.0environments.
  11. Stock, W.G.; Stock, M.: Handbook of information science : a comprehensive handbook (2013) 0.00 
    9.611576E-4 = product of:
  0.008650418 = sum of:
    0.008650418 = product of:
      0.017300837 = sum of:
        0.017300837 = weight(_text_:web in 2784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017300837 = score(doc=2784,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2784, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2784)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Dealing with information is one of the vital skills in the 21st century. It takes a fair degree of information savvy to create, represent and supply information as well as to search for and retrieve relevant knowledge. How does information (documents, pieces of knowledge) have to be organized in order to be retrievable? What role does metadata play? What are search engines on the Web, or in corporate intranets, and how do they work? How must one deal with natural language processing and tools of knowledge organization, such as thesauri, classification systems, and ontologies? How useful is social tagging? How valuable are intellectually created abstracts and automatically prepared extracts? Which empirical methods allow for user research and which for the evaluation of information systems? This Handbook is a basic work of information science, providing a comprehensive overview of the current state of information retrieval and knowledge representation. It addresses readers from all professions and scientific disciplines, but particularly scholars, practitioners and students of Information Science, Library Science, Computer Science, Information Management, and Knowledge Management. This Handbook is a suitable reference work for Public and Academic Libraries.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • d 24
  • e 7

Types

  • a 23
  • m 8
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications