Search (10999 results, page 550 of 550)

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=1249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

D-Lib magazine. 5(1999) no.1, xx S

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 1252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=1252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 1252, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1252)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

D-Lib magazine. 4(1998) no.1, xx S

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Content

Inhalt: Lession 1. Introduction to Classified Catalogue Code Lession 2. Class Index Entry and Tracing Lession 3. Personal Authors Lession 4. Corporate Body Lession 5. Series and Composite Books Lession 6. Multivolumes and Serial Publication

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 1470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=1470,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 1470, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1470)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Content

Enthält folgende Kapitel: Book numbers, introduction. - Debate over the usefulness of book numbers. - History of book numbers. - Chronological book numbers. - Biscoe's chronological book numbers. - Brown's extended data table. - Colong book numbers. - Rider's book numbers. - Merrill's book numbers. - Appendices: 1) Chronology of book numbers: 2) Bibliography of 181 references in chronological order

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 3059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=3059,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 3059, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3059)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

Information Systems (IS) is among the most widespread terms in the Computer Science field but a well founded, widely accepted theory of IS is still missing. With the Internet publication of the FRISCO report, the IFIP task group "FRamework of Information System COncepts" has taken a first step towards such a theory. Among the major achievements of this report are: (1) it builds on a solid basis formed by semiotics and ontology, (2) it defines a compendium of about 100 core IS concepts in a coherent and consistent way, (3) it goes beyond the common narrow view of information systems as pure technical artefacts by adopting an interdisciplinary, socio-technical view on them. In the autumn of 1999, a first review of the report and its impact was undertaken at the ISCO-4 conference in Leiden. In a workshop specifically devoted to the subject, the original aims and goals of FRISCO were confirmed to be still valid and the overall approach and achievements of the report were acknowledged. On the other hand, the workshop revealed some misconceptions, errors and weaknesses of the report in its present form, which are to be removed through a comprehensive revision now under way. This paper reports on the results of the Leiden conference and the current revision activities. It also points out some important consequences of the FRISCO approach as a whole.

1.5748115E-4 = product of:
  0.0036220662 = sum of:
    0.0036220662 = product of:
      0.0072441325 = sum of:
        0.0072441325 = weight(_text_:international in 6299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0072441325 = score(doc=6299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.09214154 = fieldWeight in 6299, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=6299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Series

The Kluwer International series on information retrieval

1.3663506E-4 = product of:
  0.0031426062 = sum of:
    0.0031426062 = product of:
      0.0062852125 = sum of:
        0.0062852125 = weight(_text_:1 in 8883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0062852125 = score(doc=8883,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.1085631 = fieldWeight in 8883, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=8883)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: ALBRECHTSEN, H. u. B. HJØRLAND: Understanding of language and cognition: implications for classification research; BOWKER, L. u. T.C. LETHBRIDGE: Code4: application for managing classification schemes; DUBIN, D., B.H. KWASNIK u. C. TANGMANEE: Elicitation techniques for classification research: pt.1: ordered trees, pt.2: repertory grids, pt.3: q-methodology; EASTMAN, C.M. u. R.M. CARTER: Anthropological perspectives on classification schemes; GIGUERE, M., S. SHADIE u. J. GALBRAITH: Object-oriented representation of DDC and the number-builiding process; HERT, C.A.: Information technology standardization: a classification process?; LUSTIGMAN, M. u. M.M. LUSTIGMAN: Bibliographic classification of documents dealing with the subject 'Holocaust'; MUCHONEY, D.M.: Relationships and divergence of vegetation and mapping classifications; PARSONS, J.: On the relevance of classification theory to database design; RANNEY, M., P. SCHANK, C. HOADLEY u. J. NEFF: I know one when I see one: how (much) do hypotheses differ from evidence? SOERGEL, D.: Software support for thesaurus construction and display; WILLIAMSON, N.: The Universal Decimal Classification: research to determine the feasibility of restructuring UDC into a fully-faceted system; WOO, J.: The relationship between what we know and how we classify: some philosophical bases for inquiry; AGENBROAD, J.E.: Dynamic displays for browsing hierarchical classifications; ASHKAR, C.S.: Updating the thesaurus of the grants databases for the University of Tennessee; BÖRSTLER, J.: Using feature-oriented classification in software reuse; CONNAWAY, L.S. u. M.E.C. SIEVERT: Comparison of three classification systems for information on health insurance; GIRARDI, M.R. u. B. IBRAHIM: A classification scheme for software artifacts; SHAOYI HE: Conceptual graphs as semantic representation of noun-noun compounds in English and Chinese; ROSE, J.R. u. C.M. EASTMAN: Hierarchical classification as an aid to browsing; WEISBROD, D.: OPACs, integrated thesauri, and user language; DEH-MIN, W.: Classification of management information: a perspective from recognition and its semantics

1.3663506E-4 = product of:
  0.0031426062 = sum of:
    0.0031426062 = product of:
      0.0062852125 = sum of:
        0.0062852125 = weight(_text_:1 in 5832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0062852125 = score(doc=5832,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.1085631 = fieldWeight in 5832, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5832)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

The study set out to determine: (1) what were the searching characteristics of end-users in a non-academic environment and explain this in the light of their information needs; (2) whether these characteristics were those that were ascribed to end users in the professional literature; (3) whether they differed materially from those of information professionals working in the same fields. Searching characteristics were interpreted in their widest sense to include: command utilisation/knowledge; search success a satisfaction; volume of searching; searching style / approach; duration of searches; file selection; willingness to delegate and levels of training. These issues were explored in relation to 2 practitioner groups - journalists from he Guardian newspaper, and politicians from The House of Commons. Comparative data were also sought from information professionals in these 2 organisations. A mixture of social and statistical methods was used to monitor end-user and professional searching, though transactional log analysis was strongly featured. Altogether the searching behaviour of 170 end users was evaluated in the light of the searching behaviour of 70 librarians. The principal findings were that: in some respects end users did conform to the picture that information professionals have of them: they did seartch with a limited range of commands; more of their searches produced no results, and search statements were simplly constructed. But in other respects they confounded their image - they could be very quick and economical searchers, and they did not display meters of print-out. However, there were variations between individual end users, and it was often possible to find an end-user group that matched an information professional group on one aspect of online searching or another. The online behaviour of end users was very much related to their general information seeking behaviour; and to the fact that they were not trained

1.3663506E-4 = product of:
  0.0031426062 = sum of:
    0.0031426062 = product of:
      0.0062852125 = sum of:
        0.0062852125 = weight(_text_:1 in 5854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0062852125 = score(doc=5854,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.1085631 = fieldWeight in 5854, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5854)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Isbn

1-57387-026-9

1.3663506E-4 = product of:
  0.0031426062 = sum of:
    0.0031426062 = product of:
      0.0062852125 = sum of:
        0.0062852125 = weight(_text_:1 in 254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0062852125 = score(doc=254,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.1085631 = fieldWeight in 254, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=254)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Isbn

1-56024-672-3

1.3663506E-4 = product of:
  0.0031426062 = sum of:
    0.0031426062 = product of:
      0.0062852125 = sum of:
        0.0062852125 = weight(_text_:1 in 6099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0062852125 = score(doc=6099,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.1085631 = fieldWeight in 6099, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6099)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Journal of Internet cataloging. 2(1999) no.1, S.79-92

1.3663506E-4 = product of:
  0.0031426062 = sum of:
    0.0031426062 = product of:
      0.0062852125 = sum of:
        0.0062852125 = weight(_text_:1 in 6678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0062852125 = score(doc=6678,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.1085631 = fieldWeight in 6678, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6678)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

A growing body of research is beginning to explore the information-seeking behavior of Web users. The vast majority of these studies have concentrated on the area of textual information retrieval (IR). Little research has examined how people search for non-textual information on the Internet, and few large-scale studies have investigated visual information-seeking behavior with Web search engines. This study examined visual information needs as expressed in users' Web image queries. The data set examined consisted of 1,025,908 sequential queries from 211,058 users of EXCITE, a major Internet search service. Twenty-eight (28) terms were used to identify queries for both still and moving images, resulting in a subset of 33,149 image queries by 9,855 users. We provide data on: (1) image queries -- the number of queries and the number of search terms per user, (2) image search sessions -- the number of queries per user, modifications made to subsequent queries in a session, and (3) image terms -- their rank/frequency distribution and the most highly used search terms. On average, there were 3. 36 image queries per user containing an average of 3.74 terms per query. Image queries contained a large number of unique terms. The most frequently occurring image related terms appeared less than 10 percent of the time, with most terms occurring only once. This analysis is contrasted to earlier work by Enser (1995) who examined written queries for pictorial information in a non-digital environment. Implications for the development of models for visual information retrieval, and for the design of Web search engines are discussed

1.3663506E-4 = product of:
  0.0031426062 = sum of:
    0.0031426062 = product of:
      0.0062852125 = sum of:
        0.0062852125 = weight(_text_:1 in 6681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0062852125 = score(doc=6681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.1085631 = fieldWeight in 6681, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6681)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

"The flowering part, it looks like someone is sticking their tongue out" (a subject's description of Arethusa bulbosa, see Figure 1). The mechanisms that people use in natural settings to describe objects to one another can be used to inform the design of image retrieval and museum systems. The image retrieval problem may be recast as an object description problem where the images are of objects. This study examines the vocabulary and communication constructs that are used by novices and domain experts to describe objects in an object identification task. These human-centered devices may prove to be more understandable and easier to use than some purely computational approaches. The experimental conditions mimic a scenario where a person queries an agent (active botanical information resource) in natural language in order to identify plant images. The analysis identified the objects of discourse (objects, parts and relations) including analogies, exemplars, prototypical shapes and shape modification predicates such as "longer," and "wider." In spoken language novices and horticulturists use descriptive mechanisms similar to that in botanical text but at different frequencies. For example, participants rely heavily on visual analogies to objects both within and outside of the domain. "This looks like a X" where X is a plant (i.e. "daisy") or a non-plant (i.e. "butterfly" or "child's drawing of the sun"). The results suggest that indexing and retrieval systems should provide semantic level similarity mechanisms to allow for whole-object as well as part-wise visual analogy. The systems should also provide a visual vocabulary, a set of images that represent prototypes of the verbal terms collected in this study

1.3663506E-4 = product of:
  0.0031426062 = sum of:
    0.0031426062 = product of:
      0.0062852125 = sum of:
        0.0062852125 = weight(_text_:1 in 6694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0062852125 = score(doc=6694,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.1085631 = fieldWeight in 6694, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6694)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

Web-based technology enables virtual production environments to be created in which teams of both in-house staff and remotely-based contractors can work together on thesaurus construction and indexing projects. For the past four years Synapse, the Knowledge Link Corporation has been developing a sophisticated web-based thesaurus construction, indexing and knowledge management software application. The Gale Group has been licensing the application since 1997, providing a virtual production environment for large-scale thesaurus construction and reference-content indexing projects. Synapse Corporation and The Gale Group jointly present the session "Lexicography Without Limits - A Web-Based Solution" to illustrate how web-based technology provides new solutions for the tasks of vocabulary development and indexing. Vocabulary development and indexing projects frequently require project teams to be assembled using contract lexicographers, indexers and editors to supplement in-house resources. Synapse Corporation, a company specializing in providing lexicography and indexing services, has developed a software solution that enables information specialists, who may be based in different organizational entities and geographic locations, to have real-time editorial access to centralized databases. The Synaptica software application can be accessed from anywhere in the world using standard web browsers. Each client project is hosted at a unique, secured web site and users are granted password-protected access. Synaptica supports the construction of ANSI/NISO Z39.19 [1] compliant electronic thesauri, and also has many additional components that integrate related tasks such as authority control and indexing. The presentation will examine The Gale Group as a case study and will discuss the practical issues of managing remote teams of lexicographers and indexers as well as illustrating the software functionality

1.3663506E-4 = product of:
  0.0031426062 = sum of:
    0.0031426062 = product of:
      0.0062852125 = sum of:
        0.0062852125 = weight(_text_:1 in 6704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0062852125 = score(doc=6704,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.1085631 = fieldWeight in 6704, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6704)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

The Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) is a military university educating officers from the United States and 40 foreign countries. To investigate the NPS information environment a large study obtained data on the range of information needs and behaviors of NPS personnel. The specific aim of the study was to supply organizational units with qualitative data specific to their client base, enabling them to improve campus systems and information services. Facilitators from the NPS Organizational Support Division conducted eighteen (18) focus groups during Spring Quarter 1998. Transcribed focus group sessions were analyzed using NUDIST software to identify key issues and results emerging from the data set. Categories of participants' information needs were identified, including an analysis of key information issues across the NPS campus. Use of Internet resources, other trusted individuals, and electronic indexes and abstracts ranked high among information sources used by NPS personnel. A picture emerges of a campus information environment poorly understood by the academic community. The three groups (students, staff and faculty) articulated different concerns and look to different sources to satisfy their information needs. Participants' information seeking problems centered on: (1) housing, registration and scheduling, computing and the quality of information available on the campus computer network, (2) an inability to easily disseminate information quickly to an appropriate campus audience, and (3) training in new information access technologies, and (4) the general lack of awareness of library resources and services. The paper discusses a method for more effectively disseminating information throughout the campus. Implications for the development of information seeking models and a model of the NPS information environment are discussed

1.3663506E-4 = product of:
  0.0031426062 = sum of:
    0.0031426062 = product of:
      0.0062852125 = sum of:
        0.0062852125 = weight(_text_:1 in 1669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0062852125 = score(doc=1669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.1085631 = fieldWeight in 1669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1669)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

After a short outline of problems, possibilities and difficulties of systematic information retrieval on the Internet and a description of efforts for development in this area, a specification of the terminology for this report is required. Although the process of retrieval is generally seen as an iterative process of browsing and information retrieval and several important services on the net have taken this fact into consideration, the emphasis of this report lays on the general retrieval tools for the whole of Internet. In order to be able to evaluate the differences, possibilities and restrictions of the different services it is necessary to begin with organizing the existing varieties in a typological/ taxonomical survey. The possibilities and weaknesses will be briefly compared and described for the most important services in the categories robot-based WWW-catalogues of different types, list- or form-based catalogues and simultaneous or collected search services respectively. It will however for different reasons not be possible to rank them in order of "best" services. Still more important are the weaknesses and problems common for all attempts of indexing the Internet. The problems of the quality of the input, the technical performance and the general problem of indexing virtual hypertext are shown to be at least as difficult as the different aspects of harvesting, indexing and information retrieval. Some of the attempts made in the area of further development of retrieval services will be mentioned in relation to descriptions of the contents of documents and standardization efforts. Internet harvesting and indexing technology and retrieval software is thoroughly reviewed. Details about all services and software are listed in analytical forms in Annex 1-3.

1.3663506E-4 = product of:
  0.0031426062 = sum of:
    0.0031426062 = product of:
      0.0062852125 = sum of:
        0.0062852125 = weight(_text_:1 in 1244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0062852125 = score(doc=1244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.1085631 = fieldWeight in 1244, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1244)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

1.19555676E-4 = product of:
  0.0027497804 = sum of:
    0.0027497804 = product of:
      0.005499561 = sum of:
        0.005499561 = weight(_text_:1 in 5903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005499561 = score(doc=5903,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.09499271 = fieldWeight in 5903, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5903)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Content

RDF Data Model At the core of RDF is a model for representing named properties and their values. These properties serve both to represent attributes of resources (and in this sense correspond to usual attribute-value-pairs) and to represent relationships between resources. The RDF data model is a syntax-independent way of representing RDF statements. RDF statements that are syntactically very different could mean the same thing. This concept of equivalence in meaning is very important when performing queries, aggregation and a number of other tasks at which RDF is aimed. The equivalence is defined in a clean machine understandable way. Two pieces of RDF are equivalent if and only if their corresponding data model representations are the same. Table of contents 1. Introduction 2. RDF Data Model 3. RDF Grammar 4. Signed RDF 5. Examples 6. Appendix A: Brief Explanation of XML Namespaces

1.0247629E-4 = product of:
  0.0023569546 = sum of:
    0.0023569546 = product of:
      0.0047139092 = sum of:
        0.0047139092 = weight(_text_:1 in 1253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047139092 = score(doc=1253,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.08142233 = fieldWeight in 1253, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1253)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

D-Lib magazine. 4(1998) no.1, xx S