Search (5191 results, page 260 of 260)

4.805788E-4 = product of:
  0.004325209 = sum of:
    0.004325209 = product of:
      0.008650418 = sum of:
        0.008650418 = weight(_text_:web in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008650418 = score(doc=423,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.09014259 = fieldWeight in 423, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Lena Forsén, the real human behind the Lenna image, was first published in Playboy in 1972. Soon after, USC engineers searching for a suitable test image for their image processing research sought inspiration from the magazine. They deemed Lenna the right fit and scanned the image into digital, RGB existence. From here, the story of the image follows the story of the internet. Lenna was one of the first inhabitants of ARPANet, the internet's predecessor, and then the world wide web. While the image's reach was limited to a few research papers in the '70s and '80s, in 1991, Lenna was featured on the cover of an engineering journal alongside another popular test image, Peppers. This caught the attention of Playboy, which threatened a copyright infringement lawsuit. Engineers who had grown attached to Lenna fought back. Ultimately, they prevailed, and as a Playboy VP reflected on the drama: "We decided we should exploit this because it is a phenomenon." The Playboy controversy canonized Lenna in engineering folklore and prompted an explosion of conversation about the image. Image hits on the internet rose to a peak number in 1995.

4.426644E-4 = product of:
  0.0039839796 = sum of:
    0.0039839796 = product of:
      0.007967959 = sum of:
        0.007967959 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007967959 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

4.426644E-4 = product of:
  0.0039839796 = sum of:
    0.0039839796 = product of:
      0.007967959 = sum of:
        0.007967959 = weight(_text_:22 in 5580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007967959 = score(doc=5580,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 5580, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=5580)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.90-97

4.426644E-4 = product of:
  0.0039839796 = sum of:
    0.0039839796 = product of:
      0.007967959 = sum of:
        0.007967959 = weight(_text_:22 in 1789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007967959 = score(doc=1789,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1789, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1789)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

23. 3.2008 19:10:22

3.8446303E-4 = product of:
  0.0034601672 = sum of:
    0.0034601672 = product of:
      0.0069203344 = sum of:
        0.0069203344 = weight(_text_:web in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069203344 = score(doc=3401,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.07211407 = fieldWeight in 3401, 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=3401)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Content

National FRBR experiments The larger the bibliographic database, the greater the effect of "FRBR-like" design in reducing the appearance of duplicate records. LC, RLG, and OCLC, all influenced by FRBR, are experimenting with the redesign of their databases. LC's Network Development and MARC Standards Office has posted at its web site the results of some of its investigations into FRBR and MARC, including possible display options for bibliographic information. The design of RLG's public catalog, RedLightGreen, has been described as "FRBR-ish" by Merrilee Proffitt, RLG's program officer. If you try a search for a prolific author or much-published title in RedLightGreen, you'll probably find that the display of search results is much different than what you would expect. OCLC Research has developed a prototype "frbrized" database for fiction, OCLC FictionFinder. Try a title search for a classic title like Romeo and Juliet and observe that OCLC includes, in the initial display of results (described as "works"), a graphic indicator (stars, ranging from one to five). These show in rough terms how many libraries own the work-Romeo and Juliet clearly gets a five. Indicators like this are something resource sharing staff can consider an "ILL quality rating." If you're intrigued by FRBR's possibilities and what they could mean to resource sharing workflow, start talking. Now is the time to connect with colleagues, your local and/or consortial system vendor, RLG, OCLC, and your professional organizations. Have input into how systems develop in the FRBR world."

3.8446303E-4 = product of:
  0.0034601672 = sum of:
    0.0034601672 = product of:
      0.0069203344 = sum of:
        0.0069203344 = weight(_text_:web in 4581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069203344 = score(doc=4581,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.07211407 = fieldWeight in 4581, 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=4581)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Footnote

In "Organizing Information" various fundamental organizational schemes are compared. These include hierarchical, relational, hypertext, and random access models. Each is described initially and then expanded an by listing advantages and disadvantages. This comparative format-not found elsewhere in the book-improves access to the subject and overall understanding. The author then affords considerable space to Boolean searching in the chapter "Retrieving Information." Throughout this chapter, the intricacies and problems of pattern matching and relevance are highlighted. The author elucidates the fact that document retrieval by simple pattern matching is not the same as problem solving. Therefore, "always know the nature of the problem you are trying to solve" (p. 56). This chapter is one of the more important ones in the book, covering a large topic swiftly and concisely. Chapters 5 through 11 then delve deeper into various specific issues of information systems. The chapters an securing and concealing information are exceptionally good. Without mentioning specific technologies, Mr. Ratzan is able to clearly present fundamental aspects of information security. Principles of backup security, password management, and encryption are also discussed in some detail. The latter is illustrated with some fascinating examples, from the Navajo Code Talkers to invisible ink and others. The chapters an measuring, counting, and numbering information complement each other well. Some of the more math-centric discussions and examples are found here. "Measuring Information" begins with a brief overview of bibliometrics and then moves quickly through Lotka's law, Zipf's law, and Bradford's law. For an LIS student, exposure to these topics is invaluable. Baseball statistics and web metrics are used for illustration purposes towards the end. In "counting Information," counting devices and methods are first presented, followed by discussion of the Fibonacci sequence and golden ratio. This relatively long chapter ends with examples of the tower of Hanoi, the changes of winning the lottery, and poker odds. The bulk of "Numbering Information" centers an prime numbers and pi. This chapter reads more like something out of an arithmetic book and seems somewhat extraneous here. Three specific types of information systems are presented in the second half of the book, each afforded its own chapter. These examples are universal as not to become dated or irrelevant over time. "The Computer as an Information System" is relatively short and focuses an bits, bytes, and data compression. Considering the Internet as an information system-chapter 13-is an interesting illustration. It brings up issues of IP addressing and the "privilege-vs.-right" access issue. We are reminded that the distinction between information rights and privileges is often unclear. A highlight of this chapter is the discussion of metaphors people use to describe the Internet, derived from the author's own research. He has found that people have varying mental models of the Internet, potentially affecting its perception and subsequent use.

3.8446303E-4 = product of:
  0.0034601672 = sum of:
    0.0034601672 = product of:
      0.0069203344 = sum of:
        0.0069203344 = weight(_text_:web in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069203344 = score(doc=1795,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.07211407 = fieldWeight in 1795, 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=1795)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Footnote

The economic opportunity divide is predicated an the hypothesis that there has, indeed, been a major shift in opportunities driven by changes in the information environment. The authors document this paradigm shift well with arguments from the political and economic right and left. This chapter might be described as an "attitudinal" chapter. The authors are concerned here with the perceptions of their respondents of their information skills and skill levels with their economic outlook and opportunities. Technological skills and economic opportunities are correlated, one finds, in the minds of all across all ages, genders, races, ethnicities, and income levels. African Americans in particular are ". . attuned to the use of technology for economic opportunity" (p. 80). The fourth divide is the democratic divide. The Internet may increase political participation, the authors posit, but only among groups predisposed to participate and perhaps among those with the skills necessary to take advantage of the electronic environment (p. 86). Certainly the Web has played an important role in disseminating and distributing political messages and in some cases in political fund raising. But by the analysis here, we must conclude that the message does not reach everyone equally. Thus, the Internet may widen the political participation gap rather than narrow it. The book has one major, perhaps fatal, flaw: its methodology and statistical application. The book draws upon a survey performed for the authors in June and July 2001 by the Kent State University's Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) lab (pp. 7-9). CATI employed a survey protocol provided to the reader as Appendix 2. An examination of the questionnaire reveals that all questions yield either nominal or ordinal responses, including the income variable (pp. 9-10). Nevertheless, Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury performed a series of multiple regression analyses (reported in a series of tables in Appendix 1) utilizing these data. Regression analysis requires interval/ratio data in order to be valid although nominal and ordinal data can be incorporated by building dichotomous dummy variables. Perhaps Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury utilized dummy variables; but 1 do not find that discussed. Moreover, 1 would question a multiple regression made up completely of dichotomous dummy variables. I come away from Virtual Inequality with mixed feelings. It is useful to think of the digital divide as more than one phenomenon. The four divides that Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury offeraccess, skills, economic opportunity, and democratic-are useful as a point of departure and debate. No doubt, other divides will be identified and documented. This book will lead the way. Second, without question, Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury provide us with an extremely well-documented, -written, and -argued work. Third, the authors are to be commended for the multidisciplinarity of their work. Would that we could see more like it. My reservations about their methodological approach, however, hang over this review like a shroud."

3.8446303E-4 = product of:
  0.0034601672 = sum of:
    0.0034601672 = product of:
      0.0069203344 = sum of:
        0.0069203344 = weight(_text_:web in 1804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069203344 = score(doc=1804,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.07211407 = fieldWeight in 1804, 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=1804)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Footnote

While each single paragraph of the book is packed with valuable advice and real-life experience, I consider the last chapter to be the most intriguing and ground-breaking one. It's only here that taxonomists meet folksonomists and ontologists in a fundamental attempt to write a new page on the relative position between old and emerging classification techniques. In a well-balanced and sober analysis that foregoes excessive enthusiasm in favor of more appropriate considerations about content scale, domain maturity, precision and cost, knowledge infrastructure tools are all arrayed from inexpensive and expressive folksonomies on one side, to the smart, formal, machine-readable but expensive world of ontologies on the other. In light of so many different tools, information infrastructure clearly appears more as a complex dynamic ecosystem than a static overly designed environment. Such a variety of tasks, perspectives, work activities and paradigms calls for a resilient, adaptive and flexible knowledge environment with a minimum of standardization and uniformity. The right mix of tools and approaches can only be determined case by case, by carefully considering the particular objectives and requirements of the organization while aiming to maximize its overall performance and effectiveness. Starting from the history of taxonomy-building and ending with the emerging trends in Web technologies, artificial intelligence and social computing, Organising Knowledge is thus both a guiding tool and inspirational reading, not only about taxonomies, but also about effectiveness, collaboration and finding middle ground: exactly the right principles to make your intranet, portal or document management tool a rich, evolving and long-lasting ecosystem."

3.8446303E-4 = product of:
  0.0034601672 = sum of:
    0.0034601672 = product of:
      0.0069203344 = sum of:
        0.0069203344 = weight(_text_:web in 2924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069203344 = score(doc=2924,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.07211407 = fieldWeight in 2924, 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=2924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Footnote

Rez. in: Mitt. VÖB 60(2007) H.1, S.98-101 (O. Oberhauser): "Die Autorin von Essential thesaurus construction (and essential taxonomy construction, so der implizite Untertitel, vgl. S. 1) ist durch ihre Lehrtätigkeit an der bekannten School of Library, Archive and Information Studies des University College London und durch ihre bisherigen Publikationen auf den Gebieten (Facetten-)Klassifikation und Thesaurus fachlich einschlägig ausgewiesen. Nach Essential classification liegt nun ihr Thesaurus-Lehrbuch vor, mit rund 200 Seiten Text und knapp 100 Seiten Anhang ein handliches Werk, das seine Genese zum Grossteil dem Lehrbetrieb verdankt, wie auch dem kurzen Einleitungskapitel zu entnehmen ist. Das Buch ist der Schule von Jean Aitchison et al. verpflichtet und wendet sich an "the indexer" im weitesten Sinn, d.h. an alle Personen, die ein strukturiertes, kontrolliertes Fachvokabular für die Zwecke der sachlichen Erschliessung und Suche erstellen wollen bzw. müssen. Es möchte dieser Zielgruppe das nötige methodische Rüstzeug für eine solche Aufgabe vermitteln, was einschliesslich der Einleitung und der Schlussbemerkungen in zwanzig Kapiteln geschieht - eine ansprechende Strukturierung, die ein wohldosiertes Durcharbeiten möglich macht. Zu letzterem tragen auch die von der Autorin immer wieder gestellten Übungsaufgaben bei (Lösungen jeweils am Kapitelende). Zu Beginn der Darstellung wird der "information retrieval thesaurus" von dem (zumindest im angelsächsischen Raum) weit öfter mit dem Thesaurusbegriff assoziierten "reference thesaurus" abgegrenzt, einem nach begrifflicher Ähnlichkeit angeordneten Synonymenwörterbuch, das gerne als Mittel zur stilistischen Verbesserung beim Abfassen von (wissenschaftlichen) Arbeiten verwendet wird. Ohne noch ins Detail zu gehen, werden optische Erscheinungsform und Anwendungsgebiete von Thesauren vorgestellt, der Thesaurus als postkoordinierte Indexierungssprache erläutert und seine Nähe zu facettierten Klassifikationssystemen erwähnt. In der Folge stellt Broughton die systematisch organisierten Systeme (Klassifikation/ Taxonomie, Begriffs-/Themendiagramme, Ontologien) den alphabetisch angeordneten, wortbasierten (Schlagwortlisten, thesaurusartige Schlagwortsysteme und Thesauren im eigentlichen Sinn) gegenüber, was dem Leser weitere Einordnungshilfen schafft. Die Anwendungsmöglichkeiten von Thesauren als Mittel der Erschliessung (auch als Quelle für Metadatenangaben bei elektronischen bzw. Web-Dokumenten) und der Recherche (Suchformulierung, Anfrageerweiterung, Browsing und Navigieren) kommen ebenso zur Sprache wie die bei der Verwendung natürlichsprachiger Indexierungssysteme auftretenden Probleme. Mit Beispielen wird ausdrücklich auf die mehr oder weniger starke fachliche Spezialisierung der meisten dieser Vokabularien hingewiesen, wobei auch Informationsquellen über Thesauren (z.B. www.taxonomywarehouse.com) sowie Thesauren für nicht-textuelle Ressourcen kurz angerissen werden.

3.8446303E-4 = product of:
  0.0034601672 = sum of:
    0.0034601672 = product of:
      0.0069203344 = sum of:
        0.0069203344 = weight(_text_:web in 2824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069203344 = score(doc=2824,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.07211407 = fieldWeight in 2824, 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=2824)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Footnote

Essential Classification is also an exercise book. Indeed, it contains a number of practical exercises and activities in every chapter, along with suggested answers. Unfortunately, the answers are too often provided without the justifications and explanations that students would no doubt demand. The author has taken great care to explain all technical terms in her text, but formal definitions are also gathered in an extensive 172-term Glossary; appropriately, these terms appear in bold type the first time they are used in the text. A short, very short, annotated bibliography of standard classification textbooks and of manuals for the use of major classification schemes is provided. A detailed 11-page index completes the set of learning aids which will be useful to an audience of students in their effort to grasp the basic concepts of the theory and the practice of document classification in a traditional environment. Essential Classification is a fine textbook. However, this reviewer deplores the fact that it presents only a very "traditional" view of classification, without much reference to newer environments such as the Internet where classification also manifests itself in various forms. In Essential Classification, books are always used as examples, and we have to take the author's word that traditional classification practices and tools can also be applied to other types of documents and elsewhere than in the traditional library. Vanda Broughton writes, for example, that "Subject headings can't be used for physical arrangement" (p. 101), but this is not entirely true. Subject headings can be used for physical arrangement of vertical files, for example, with each folder bearing a simple or complex heading which is then used for internal organization. And if it is true that subject headings cannot be reproduced an the spine of [physical] books (p. 93), the situation is certainly different an the World Wide Web where subject headings as metadata can be most useful in ordering a collection of hot links. The emphasis is also an the traditional paperbased, rather than an the electronic version of classification schemes, with excellent justifications of course. The reality is, however, that supporting organizations (LC, OCLC, etc.) are now providing great quality services online, and that updates are now available only in an electronic format and not anymore on paper. E-based versions of classification schemes could be safely ignored in a theoretical text, but they have to be described and explained in a textbook published in 2005. One last comment: Professor Broughton tends to use the same term, "classification" to represent the process (as in classification is grouping) and the tool (as in constructing a classification, using a classification, etc.). Even in the Glossary where classification is first well-defined as a process, and classification scheme as "a set of classes ...", the definition of classification scheme continues: "the classification consists of a vocabulary (...) and syntax..." (p. 296-297). Such an ambiguous use of the term classification seems unfortunate and unnecessarily confusing in an otherwise very good basic textbook an categorization of concepts and subjects, document organization and subject representation."

3.3640515E-4 = product of:
  0.0030276463 = sum of:
    0.0030276463 = product of:
      0.0060552927 = sum of:
        0.0060552927 = weight(_text_:web in 6119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0060552927 = score(doc=6119,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.06309982 = fieldWeight in 6119, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.013671875 = fieldNorm(doc=6119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Footnote

Chapter 13 an DL evaluation merges criteria from traditional library evaluation with criteria from user interface design and information retrieval. Quantitative, macro-evaluation techniques are emphasized, and again, some DL evaluation projects and reports are illustrated. A very brief chapter an the role of librarians in the DL follows, emphasizing that traditional reference skills are paramount to the success of the digital librarian, but that he should also be savvy in Web page and user interface design. A final chapter an research trends in digital libraries seems a bit incoherent. It mentions many of the previous chapters' topics, and would possibly be better organized if written as summary sections and distributed among the other chapters. The book's breadth is quite expansive, touching an both fundamental and advanced topics necessary to a well-rounded DL education. As the book is thoroughly referenced to DL and DL-related research projects, it serves as a useful starting point for those interested in more in depth learning. However, this breadth is also a weakness. In my opinion, the sheer number of research projects and papers surveyed leaves the authors little space to critique and summarize key issues. Many of the case studies are presented as itemized lists and not used to exemplify specific points. I feel that an introductory text should exercise some editorial and evaluative rights to create structure and organization for the uninitiated. Case studies should be carefully Chosen to exemplify the specific issues and differences and strengths highlighted. It is lamentable that in many of the descriptions of research projects, the authors tend to give more historical and funding Background than is necessary and miss out an giving a synthesis of the pertinent details.