Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03248337 = product of:
  0.11369179 = sum of:
    0.045449268 = weight(_text_:wide in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045449268 = score(doc=472,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.34615302 = fieldWeight in 472, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=472)
    0.046129078 = weight(_text_:web in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046129078 = score(doc=472,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.47698978 = fieldWeight in 472, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=472)
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=472,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 472, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=472)
    0.014978974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014978974 = score(doc=472,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 472, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=472)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

Allowing the description of the structure of documents has been one of the key factors for the success of the hypertext markup language (HTML) family of markup languages. This capability has motivated the phenomenon that has become known as the World Wide Web (the "Web"). The next generation of the Web, known as the Semantic Web (Berners-Lee, Hendler. & Lassila, 2001), aims at describing the meaning rather than the structure of data, adding more intelligent search, retrieval, and other agent functionalities to the Web, and tools that make the implementation of this Semantic Web possible are greatly needed. The increasing availability of multimedia on the World Wide Web makes metadata description efforts for multimedia a pressing need, yet with the volume of content being created, often only a rudimentary description of the multimedia content is available. In addition, the digital mode entails a host of other descriptive needs, such as the format, factors such as compression and transmission, and issues such as copyright restrictions and terns for usage. Thus, new and efficient ways of describing multimedia content and meaning are needed as well as a structure that is capable of carrying such descriptions. Several attempts have been made to grapple with this issue using descriptive metadata, one of the earliest of which was the revision of the Dublin Core to ascertain essential features necessary to resource discovery of visual items in a networked environment (Weibel & Miller, 1997). Other metadata schemes, such as the Visual Resources Association Core Categories (http://www.vraweb.org/vracore3.htm), also include format information necessary to the use and display of digital images.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.9, S.1323-1328

0.016751997 = product of:
  0.058631986 = sum of:
    0.01928249 = weight(_text_:wide in 3080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01928249 = score(doc=3080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.14686027 = fieldWeight in 3080, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3080)
    0.010461091 = weight(_text_:web in 3080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010461091 = score(doc=3080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.108171105 = fieldWeight in 3080, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3080)
    0.010913635 = weight(_text_:information in 3080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010913635 = score(doc=3080,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20979412 = fieldWeight in 3080, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3080)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=3080,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 3080, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3080)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 31(2004) no.2, S.114-115 (J. Turner): "Professor Corinne Jörgensen's book will be useful to researchers, practitioners, and graduate students working in the area of the management of collections of still images. The book is a fine piece of scholarship that is thoroughly researched and nicely written. It integrates information from a number of perspectives, including cognitive psychology and computer science, into an information science text. This work is timely, since images and other nontextual information are forming an ever larger part of the mass of information available to us. Indeed, in the long history of recorded information an our planet, images "were the only form of written communication for 25,000 out of the 30,000 years of human recorded experience ... we are, it appears, an the hinge of an important historical swing back towards what may be called the primacy of the image" (p. ix). The book will be valued for the richness of the information it gathers and for the intelligent discussion it offers. There are six chapters to the work: 1. Why images, and what do we know about them? 2. Cognitive foundations for image processing; 3. Organizing and providing access to images; 4. Machine processing of images; 5. Image attributes: the research framework; 6. Towards the future. In addition, there is an excellent bibliography of over forty pages, which is valuable because it provides so many good leads into the literatures of information science and of related disciplines that contribute to the discussions of image retrieval presented in the book. There are separate subject and author indexes. The author index is considerably longer than the subject index, an indication of how muck published literature is discussed in the text. Finally, a list of figures and a list of tables provide additional finding aids. The inclusion of discussions of issues from disciplines other than information science reflects the changing reality of information systems for managing picture collections. Throughout the time such collections have been built, there has never been much coordination of approaches, methods, or practices, even within the discipline of information science. Since the arrival about ten years ago of the World Wide Web, major changes have taken place in the way information is organised, stored, and retrieved. The new networked environment requires a great deal of coordination, common standards, and much more uniform practices than managers of collections of pictures have been used to in the past. Jörgensen's extensive research into the work accomplished by a number of contributing disciplines and her presentation of it in relation to the problem of managing collections of images indicates a deep understanding of the issues and a remarkable capacity to relate them to issues in information science. Accomplishing such a feat so successfully makes this work a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion of how collections need to be managed in the networked environment. The interdisciplinary nature of the problem has never before been presented so clearly, nor so thoroughly.
The discussion of available tools is excellent and quite comprehensive. This will prove very helpful to practitioners and students setting out to learn about the world of storage, retrieval, and indexing of images. The author's simple, straightforward writing style is praiseworthy, since it will help those just starting out in the field to grasp the material quickly. It will also contribute to understanding an the part of readers from other language communities who have English as a second language. Although this book discusses a number of complex topics, the author has succeeded in making the treatment of them eminently understandable. Chapter 6 will prove particularly useful to researchers in the area, many more of whom are needed, and especially to graduate students thinking about undertaking a doctoral programme in the area of image management. The author provides a research agenda which describes a number of areas in which research is needed, including a number of research questions to work on. She also includes her wish list, which "represents a personal perspective, and is offered ... as food for thought and future discussion" (p. 267). Jörgensen feels her book will soon be out of date, and indeed, that in writing the book she has been "pursuing a moving target" (p. 4). Since there is so muck work going an in the broad field of image retrieval (although not enough in the area of information science), new discoveries will be made, new issues we hadn't thought about before will come to light, new methods and standards for managing picture databases will be developed, and new approaches will surely come along. However, I'm not so sure this book will be out of date any time soon, since it serves as a record of arriving at a plateau, a point at which the knowledge accumulated to date has been gathered, recorded, and presented as a portrait of what has been achieved and of where we are now. At the very least, then, Jörgensen's book will remain as a solid record of the research to date. More immediately, it will serve as a guide to what we should be doing now, and to the next steps that need to be taken."

0.008474699 = product of:
  0.039548595 = sum of:
    0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 6532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017435152 = score(doc=6532,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 6532, 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=6532)
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 6532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=6532,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 6532, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6532)
    0.014978974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014978974 = score(doc=6532,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 6532, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6532)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

This article presents exploratory research evaluating a conceptual structure for the description of visual content of images. The structure, which was developed from empirical research in several fields (e.g., Computer Science, Psychology, Information Studies, etc.), classifies visual attributes into a "Pyramid" containing four syntactic levels (type/technique, global distribution, local structure, composition), and six semantic levels (generic, specific, and abstract levels of both object and scene, respectively). Various experiments are presented, which address the Pyramid's ability to achieve several tasks: (1) classification of terms describing image attributes generated in a formal and an informal description task, (2) classification of terms that result from a structured approach to indexing, and (3) guidance in the indexing process. Several descriptions, generated by naive users and indexers, are used in experiments that include two image collections: a random Web sample, and a set of news images. To test descriptions generated in a structured setting, an Image Indexing Template (developed independently over several years of this project by one of the authors) was also used. The experiments performed suggest that the Pyramid is conceptually robust (i.e., can accommodate a full range of attributes), and that it can be used to organize visual content for retrieval, to guide the indexing process, and to classify descriptions obtained manually and automatically

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.11, S.938-947

0.006374111 = product of:
  0.044618774 = sum of:
    0.03856498 = weight(_text_:wide in 458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03856498 = score(doc=458,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 458, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=458)
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=458,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 458, 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=458)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Metadata describing multimedia can address a wide variety of purposes, from the purely physical characteristics of an item, to the circumstances surrounding its production, to attributes that cannot necessarily be determined by examining the item itself directly. These latter attributes, often dealing with "meaning" or interpretation of an item's content, are frequently deemed too difficult to determine and subject to individual and cultural variability. At the same time, however, research has shown that these abstract, interpretive attributes, which carry meaning, are frequently the ones for which people search. To describe an item fully, therefore, means to describe it at both the "syntactic" and the "semantic" levels. This article discusses the development of the semantic description schemes within the MPEG-7 standard from both a historical and an intellectual perspective, as well as the difficulties inherent in creating a descriptive schema that can fully capture the complexity of "narrative worlds."

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.9, S.1338-1345

8.737902E-4 = product of:
  0.012233062 = sum of:
    0.012233062 = weight(_text_:information in 1711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012233062 = score(doc=1711,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 1711, 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=1711)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

At the same time that the Internet is becoming more accessible to large numbers of people and information consumers are becoming information producers, traditional methods of organizing, describing, and providing access to "documents" are being overwhelmed by the ever-increasing number of digitized materials. Another parallel occurrence is the disappearance of cultural and indigenous knowledge as environments and peoples cease to exist. Therefore, the knowledge and ability to build and describe collections needs to be spread among a larger distributed group of participants. Three mechanisms are needed to facilitate this "unlocking" of collections and their management: the distributed description and annotation of documents, distributed collection building, and distributed knowledge creation.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 55(2004) no.5, S.462-464

5.7655195E-4 = product of:
  0.008071727 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 3884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=3884,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3884, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3884)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

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

5.0960475E-4 = product of:
  0.0071344664 = sum of:
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=1007,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The potential impact of the Internet an the public's Jemand for the services and resources of public libraries is an issue of critical importance. The research reported in this article provides baseline data concerning the evolving relationship between the public's use of the library and its use of the Internet. The authors developed a consumer model of the American adult market for information services and resources, segmented by use (or nonuse) of the public library and by access (or lack of access) to, and use (or nonuse) of, the Internet. A national Random Digit Dialing telephone survey collected data to estimate the size of each of six market segments, and to describe their usage choices between the public library and the Internet. The analyses presented in this article provide estimates of the size and demographics of each of the market segments; describe why people are currently using the public library and the Internet; identify the decision criteria people use in their choices of which provider to use; identify areas in which libraries and the Internet appear to be competing and areas in which they appear to be complementary; and identify reasons why people choose not to use the public library and/or the Internet. The data suggest that some differentiation between the library and the Internet is taking place, which may very well have an impact an consumer choices between the two. Longitudinal research is necessary to fully reveal trends in these usage choices, which have implications for all types of libraries in planning and policy development.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.10, S.802-802

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 4342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=4342,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4342, 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=4342)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.12, S.1346-1359

4.076838E-4 = product of:
  0.005707573 = sum of:
    0.005707573 = weight(_text_:information in 6527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005707573 = score(doc=6527,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 6527, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6527)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

We are, it appears, on the hinge of an important historical swing back towards what may be called the primacy of the image. For the last few centuries, words have been the privileged form of communication and the preferred means of education. A shift has taken place, however, within the last several decades, and images have been reasserting their primacy as immediate and influential messengers. This change was heralded some years ago in a slim volume entitled, "The Telling Image: The Changing Balance between Pictures and Words in a Technological Age."' (Davies, Bathurst, & Bathurst). The author of this book describes a past in which images (e.g., pictograms, ideograms) were the only form of written communication for 25,000 out of the 30,000 years of human recorded experience. The invention of the phonetic alphabet began to change this. It is only during the last 500 years, with the invention of printing, that pictures as serious "messengers" receded well into the background. One reason for this was the sheer difficulty in producing images. However, with the widespread availability of easy-to-use image creation technologies, images are again being widely used in education, training, and persuasion, not to mention entertainment. The rise in image production and use has been accompanied by the theory of hemispheric lateralization (more popularly referred to as "left-brain/right brain" abilities), which arose during the last 40 years (Jaynes, 1976; Levy, 1974; Penfield & Roberts, 1959). This theory holds that functions of cognitive processing are located primarily in either the left or right hemispheres of the brain. The brain's left hemisphere seems to be linked to language processing, and is well exercised by the overall emphasis on speech and text in education and information systems. The brain's right hemisphere handles spatial reasoning, symbolic processing, and pictorial interpretation. The widespread use and acceptance of Graphic User Interfaces (GUIs) in computer systems and the development of iconic programming languages demonstrate that visual mechanisms appeal to a broader range of cognitive abilities than text alone. In a sense, then, images are the hinge between textual representation and direct experience.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.11, S.906-910