Search (4660 results, page 233 of 233)

9.1530493E-4 = product of:
  0.010983659 = sum of:
    0.010983659 = weight(_text_:internet in 1260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010983659 = score(doc=1260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.11416282 = fieldWeight in 1260, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1260)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

Flexible organization of information is one of the key design challenges in any digital library. For the past year, we have been working with members of the National Digital Library Project (NDLP) at the Library of Congress to build an experimental system to organize and store library collections. This is a report on the work. In particular, we describe how a few technical building blocks are used to organize the material in collections, such as the NDLP's, and how these methods fit into a general distributed computing framework. The technical building blocks are part of a framework that evolved as part of the Computer Science Technical Reports Project (CSTR). This framework is described in the paper, "A Framework for Distributed Digital Object Services", by Robert Kahn and Robert Wilensky (1995). The main building blocks are: "digital objects", which are used to manage digital material in a networked environment; "handles", which identify digital objects and other network resources; and "repositories", in which digital objects are stored. These concepts are amplified in "Key Concepts in the Architecture of the Digital Library", by William Y. Arms (1995). In summer 1995, after earlier experimental development, work began on the implementation of a full digital library system based on this framework. In addition to Kahn/Wilensky and Arms, several working papers further elaborate on the design concepts. A paper by Carl Lagoze and David Ely, "Implementation Issues in an Open Architectural Framework for Digital Object Services", delves into some of the repository concepts. The initial repository implementation was based on a paper by Carl Lagoze, Robert McGrath, Ed Overly and Nancy Yeager, "A Design for Inter-Operable Secure Object Stores (ISOS)". Work on the handle system, which began in 1992, is described in a series of papers that can be found on the Handle Home Page. The National Digital Library Program (NDLP) at the Library of Congress is a large scale project to convert historic collections to digital form and make them widely available over the Internet. The program is described in two articles by Caroline R. Arms, "Historical Collections for the National Digital Library". The NDLP itself draws on experience gained through the earlier American Memory Program. Based on this work, we have built a pilot system that demonstrates how digital objects can be used to organize complex materials, such as those found in the NDLP. The pilot was demonstrated to members of the library in July 1996. The pilot system includes the handle system for identifying digital objects, a pilot repository to store them, and two user interfaces: one designed for librarians to manage digital objects in the repository, the other for library patrons to access the materials stored in the repository. Materials from the NDLP's Coolidge Consumerism compilation have been deposited into the pilot repository. They include a variety of photographs and texts, converted to digital form. The pilot demonstrates the use of handles for identifying such material, the use of meta-objects for managing sets of digital objects, and the choice of metadata. We are now implementing an enhanced prototype system for completion in early 1997.

9.1530493E-4 = product of:
  0.010983659 = sum of:
    0.010983659 = weight(_text_:internet in 1164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010983659 = score(doc=1164,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.11416282 = fieldWeight in 1164, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1164)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

The explosive growth of the Internet and other sources of networked information have made automatic mediation of access to networked information sources an increasingly important problem. Much of this information is expressed as electronic text, and it is becoming practical to automatically convert some printed documents and recorded speech to electronic text as well. Thus, automated systems capable of detecting useful documents are finding widespread application. With even a small number of languages it can be inconvenient to issue the same query repeatedly in every language, so users who are able to read more than one language will likely prefer a multilingual text retrieval system over a collection of monolingual systems. And since reading ability in a language does not always imply fluent writing ability in that language, such users will likely find cross-language text retrieval particularly useful for languages in which they are less confident of their ability to express their information needs effectively. The use of such systems can be also be beneficial if the user is able to read only a single language. For example, when only a small portion of the document collection will ever be examined by the user, performing retrieval before translation can be significantly more economical than performing translation before retrieval. So when the application is sufficiently important to justify the time and effort required for translation, those costs can be minimized if an effective cross-language text retrieval system is available. Even when translation is not available, there are circumstances in which cross-language text retrieval could be useful to a monolingual user. For example, a researcher might find a paper published in an unfamiliar language useful if that paper contains references to works by the same author that are in the researcher's native language.

9.106209E-4 = product of:
  0.010927451 = sum of:
    0.010927451 = product of:
      0.021854902 = sum of:
        0.021854902 = weight(_text_:22 in 4360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021854902 = score(doc=4360,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.19150631 = fieldWeight in 4360, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4360)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

15. 7.2018 16:22:16

Footnote

Rez. in: Mitteilungen VÖB 48(1995) H.1, S.66-68 (K. Niedermair) - Vgl. auch Lepsky, K. in: Bibliotheksdienst 29(1995) H.3, S.500-519; Bibliothek: Forschung u. Praxis 19(1995) H.2, S.251-254 (G. Hartwieg; auch in: LDV-Forum Bd. 12, Nr. 2, Jg. 1995, S.22-29 [unter: http://www.jlcl.org/1995_Heft2/Rezensionen_19-27.pdf]) .

7.8454707E-4 = product of:
  0.009414565 = sum of:
    0.009414565 = weight(_text_:internet in 849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009414565 = score(doc=849,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.09785385 = fieldWeight in 849, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=849)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

There are no a priori solutions here: each scheme must be taken in its own context of use. Classifications that work in the real world must meet both challenges simultaneously. For example, in studying the history of the International Classification of Diseases, we noted that the designers of this global classification system must constantly make practical tradeoffs between the two challenges. In order to do justice to the range of subtle vernacular terms used by medical personnel around the world, a huge unwieldy list would have to be developed. In order for physicians and other users to actually employ the system, a much shorter key to filling out forms is the only possible alternative. As the Internet, Web, and various digital libraries burst their boundaries and appear on desktops and in homes, the tension between these two challenges deepens. What do we understand about the interplay between vernacular classifications and the more formal structures underlying search engines, online catalogs, and other electronic guides? For groups of users that may be both global and unknown, what is the meaning of joining the two aspects of classification? What is usability in the context of both the Web and the intimate desktop? The combination of the cultural and the formal in turn produces a third challenge-a moral and ethical one. For large-scale systems, whose voices will be heard and whose silenced? Whose culture will become the taken-for-granted and whose the exotic other? Where makers and users of classification systems do not address these questions, silent inequities prevail. The articles in this collection each address this set of issues from a variety of angles.

7.8454707E-4 = product of:
  0.009414565 = sum of:
    0.009414565 = weight(_text_:internet in 1253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009414565 = score(doc=1253,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.09785385 = fieldWeight in 1253, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1253)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

Information retrieval over the Internet increasingly requires the filtering of thousands of heterogeneous information sources. Important sources of information include not only traditional databases with structured data and queries, but also increasing numbers of non-traditional, semi- or unstructured collections such as Web sites, FTP archives, etc. As the number and variability of sources increases, new ways of automatically summarizing, discovering, and selecting collections relevant to a user's query are needed. One such method involves the use of classification schemes, such as the Library of Congress Classification (LCC), within which a collection may be represented based on its content, irrespective of the structure of the actual data or documents. For such a system to be useful in a large-scale distributed environment, it must be easy to use for both collection managers and users. As a result, it must be possible to classify documents automatically within a classification scheme. Furthermore, there must be a straightforward and intuitive interface with which the user may use the scheme to assist in information retrieval (IR). Our work with the Alexandria Digital Library (ADL) Project focuses on geo-referenced information, whether text, maps, aerial photographs, or satellite images. As a result, we have emphasized techniques which work with both text and non-text, such as combined textual and graphical queries, multi-dimensional indexing, and IR methods which are not solely dependent on words or phrases. Part of this work involves locating relevant online sources of information. In particular, we have designed and are currently testing aspects of an architecture, Pharos, which we believe will scale up to 1.000.000 heterogeneous sources. Pharos accommodates heterogeneity in content and format, both among multiple sources as well as within a single source. That is, we consider sources to include Web sites, FTP archives, newsgroups, and full digital libraries; all of these systems can include a wide variety of content and multimedia data formats. Pharos is based on the use of hierarchical classification schemes. These include not only well-known 'subject' (or 'concept') based schemes such as the Dewey Decimal System and the LCC, but also, for example, geographic classifications, which might be constructed as layers of smaller and smaller hierarchical longitude/latitude boxes. Pharos is designed to work with sophisticated queries which utilize subjects, geographical locations, temporal specifications, and other types of information domains. The Pharos architecture requires that hierarchically structured collection metadata be extracted so that it can be partitioned in such a way as to greatly enhance scalability. Automated classification is important to Pharos because it allows information sources to extract the requisite collection metadata automatically that must be distributed.

7.8454707E-4 = product of:
  0.009414565 = sum of:
    0.009414565 = weight(_text_:internet in 1262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009414565 = score(doc=1262,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.09785385 = fieldWeight in 1262, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1262)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

The Z39.50 standard for information retrieval is important from a number of perspectives. While still not widely known within the computer networking community, it is a mature standard that represents the culmination of two decades of thinking and debate about how information retrieval functions can be modeled, standardized, and implemented in a distributed systems environment. And - importantly -- it has been tested through substantial deployment experience. Z39.50 is one of the few examples we have to date of a protocol that actually goes beyond codifying mechanism and moves into the area of standardizing shared semantic knowledge. The extent to which this should be a goal of the protocol has been an ongoing source of controversy and tension within the developer community, and differing views on this issue can be seen both in the standard itself and the way that it is used in practice. Given the growing emphasis on issues such as "semantic interoperability" as part of the research agenda for digital libraries (see Clifford A. Lynch and Hector Garcia-Molina. Interoperability, Scaling, and the Digital Libraries Research Agenda, Report on the May 18-19, 1995 IITA Libraries Workshop, <http://www- diglib.stanford.edu/diglib/pub/reports/iita-dlw/main.html>), the insights gained by the Z39.50 community into the complex interactions among various definitions of semantics and interoperability are particularly relevant. The development process for the Z39.50 standard is also of interest in its own right. Its history, dating back to the 1970s, spans a period that saw the eclipse of formal standards-making agencies by groups such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and informal standards development consortia. Moreover, in order to achieve meaningful implementation, Z39.50 had to move beyond its origins in the OSI debacle of the 1980s. Z39.50 has also been, to some extent, a victim of its own success -- or at least promise. Recent versions of the standard are highly extensible, and the consensus process of standards development has made it hospitable to an ever-growing set of new communities and requirements. As this process of extension has proceeded, it has become ever less clear what the appropriate scope and boundaries of the protocol should be, and what expectations one should have of practical interoperability among implementations of the standard. Z39.50 thus offers an excellent case study of the problems involved in managing the evolution of a standard over time. It may well offer useful lessons for the future of other standards such as HTTP and HTML, which seem to be facing some of the same issues.

7.358928E-4 = product of:
  0.008830713 = sum of:
    0.008830713 = product of:
      0.017661426 = sum of:
        0.017661426 = weight(_text_:22 in 7286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017661426 = score(doc=7286,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 7286, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7286)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 20(1993) no.2, S.100-105 (J.M. Perreault); International cataloguing and bibliographic control 22(1993) no.2, S.35 (M. Norman)

7.358928E-4 = product of:
  0.008830713 = sum of:
    0.008830713 = product of:
      0.017661426 = sum of:
        0.017661426 = weight(_text_:22 in 2317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017661426 = score(doc=2317,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2317, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2317)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

15.10.1995 11:44:22

7.358928E-4 = product of:
  0.008830713 = sum of:
    0.008830713 = product of:
      0.017661426 = sum of:
        0.017661426 = weight(_text_:22 in 4931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017661426 = score(doc=4931,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4931, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4931)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

22. 7.2000 18:38:35

7.358928E-4 = product of:
  0.008830713 = sum of:
    0.008830713 = product of:
      0.017661426 = sum of:
        0.017661426 = weight(_text_:22 in 5976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017661426 = score(doc=5976,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5976, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5976)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

22. 3.2008 16:17:15

7.358928E-4 = product of:
  0.008830713 = sum of:
    0.008830713 = product of:
      0.017661426 = sum of:
        0.017661426 = weight(_text_:22 in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017661426 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

22. 3.2002 8:51:28

7.358928E-4 = product of:
  0.008830713 = sum of:
    0.008830713 = product of:
      0.017661426 = sum of:
        0.017661426 = weight(_text_:22 in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017661426 = score(doc=292,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 292, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=292)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

22. 3.2002 9:44:47

7.358928E-4 = product of:
  0.008830713 = sum of:
    0.008830713 = product of:
      0.017661426 = sum of:
        0.017661426 = weight(_text_:22 in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017661426 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

22. 3.2002 9:54:13

7.358928E-4 = product of:
  0.008830713 = sum of:
    0.008830713 = product of:
      0.017661426 = sum of:
        0.017661426 = weight(_text_:22 in 908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017661426 = score(doc=908,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 908, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=908)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Source

Knowledge management: organization competence and methodolgy. Proceedings of the Fourth International ISMICK Symposium, 21-22 October 1996, Netherlands. Ed.: J.F. Schreinemakers

7.358928E-4 = product of:
  0.008830713 = sum of:
    0.008830713 = product of:
      0.017661426 = sum of:
        0.017661426 = weight(_text_:22 in 520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017661426 = score(doc=520,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 520, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=520)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

8. 1.2007 17:22:25

7.358928E-4 = product of:
  0.008830713 = sum of:
    0.008830713 = product of:
      0.017661426 = sum of:
        0.017661426 = weight(_text_:22 in 1623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017661426 = score(doc=1623,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1623, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1623)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

22. 6.2015 14:35:37

6.5378926E-4 = product of:
  0.007845471 = sum of:
    0.007845471 = weight(_text_:internet in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007845471 = score(doc=839,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.081544876 = fieldWeight in 839, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=839)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

Since 1988, two issues of Library Trends have been devoted to various aspects of image and multimedia information retrieval. In each issue, the editors call for a synergy across the disciplines that develop image retrieval systems and those that utilize these systems. Stam and Giral, in the 1988 issue of Library Trends titled "Linking Art Objects and Art Information," emphasize the need for a thorough understanding of the visual information-seeking behaviors of image database users. Writing in a 1990 issue of Library Trends devoted to graphical information retrieval, Mark Rorvig takes up the fundamental issue that "what can be listed cannot always be found" and uses that statement as a framework for examining progress in intellectual access to visual information. In the ensuing decade, several critical events have unfolded that have brought about some of the needed collaboration across disciplines and have enhanced the potential for advancements in the area of visual information retrieval. First, the field of computer vision has grown exponentially within the past decade, producing tools that enable the retrieval of visual information, especially for objects with no accompanying structural, administrative, or descriptive text information. Second, the Internet, more specifically the Web, has become a common channel for the transmission of graphical information, thus moving visual information retrieval rapidly from stand-alone workstations and databases into a networked environment. Third, the use of the Web to provide access to the search and retrieval mechanisms for visual and other forms of information has spawned the development of emerging standards for metadata about these objects as well as the creation of commonly employed methods to achieve interoperability across the searching of visual, textual, and other multimedia repositories. Practicality has begun to dictate that the indexing of huge collections of images by hand is a task that is both labor intensive and expensive-in many cases more than can be afforded to provide some method of intellectual access to digital image collections. In the world of text retrieval, text "speaks for itself" whereas image analysis requires a combination of high-level concept creation as well as the processing and interpretation of inherent visual features. In the area of intellectual access to visual information, the interplay between human and machine image indexing methods has begun to influence the development of visual information retrieval systems. Research and application by the visual information retrieval (VIR) community suggests that the most fruitful approaches to VIR involve analysis of the type of information being sought, the domain in which it will be used, and systematic testing to identify optimal retrieval methods.

6.439062E-4 = product of:
  0.007726874 = sum of:
    0.007726874 = product of:
      0.015453748 = sum of:
        0.015453748 = weight(_text_:22 in 906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015453748 = score(doc=906,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 906, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Source

Knowledge management: organization competence and methodolgy. Proceedings of the Fourth International ISMICK Symposium, 21-22 October 1996, Netherlands. Ed.: J.F. Schreinemakers

6.439062E-4 = product of:
  0.007726874 = sum of:
    0.007726874 = product of:
      0.015453748 = sum of:
        0.015453748 = weight(_text_:22 in 5606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015453748 = score(doc=5606,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 5606, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5606)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

1. 8.2006 12:22:06

6.439062E-4 = product of:
  0.007726874 = sum of:
    0.007726874 = product of:
      0.015453748 = sum of:
        0.015453748 = weight(_text_:22 in 1705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015453748 = score(doc=1705,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 1705, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1705)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

20. 3.2008 14:22:43