Search (31408 results, page 1571 of 1571)

2.2038001E-4 = product of:
  0.0035260802 = sum of:
    0.0035260802 = weight(_text_:information in 469) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035260802 = score(doc=469,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.0671879 = fieldWeight in 469, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=469)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.8, S.1222 (P.K. Nayar): "Media ecology is the intersection of information and communications technology (ICTs), organizational behavior, and human interaction. Technology, especially ICT, is the environment of human culture today-from individuals to organizations, in metropolises across the world. Fuller defines media ecology as "the allocation of informational roles in organizations and in computer-supported collaborative work" (p. 3), a fairly comprehensive definition. Fuller opens with a study of a pirate radio in London. Adapting thinkers on media and culture-Stuart Hall, J. F. Gibson's ecological psychology, Deleuze and Guattari figure prominently here. Exploring the attempted regulation of radio, the dissemination into multiple "forms," and the structures that facilitate this, Fuller presents the environment in which "subversive" radio broadcasts take place. Marketing and voices, microphones, and language codes all begin to interact with each other to form a higher order of a material or "machinic" universe (Fuller here adapts Deleuze and Guattari's concept of a "machinic phylum" defined as "materiality, natural or artificial, and both simultaneously; it is matter in movement, in flux, in variation, matter as a conveyer of singularities and traits of expression," p. 17). Using hip-hop as a case study, Fuller argues that digitized sound transforms the voice from indexical to the "rhythmatic." Music becomes fundamentally synthetic here (p. 31), and acquires the potential to access a greater space of embodiment. Other factors, often ignored in media studies, include the role of the DJs (disk jockies), are worked into a holistic account. The DJ, notes Fuller is a switch for the pirate station, but is also a creator of hype. Storing, transposing, organizing time, the DJ is a crucial element in the informational ecology of the radio station. Fuller argues that "things" like the mobile phone must be treated as media assemblages. Pirate radio is an example of the minoritarian use of media systems, according to Fuller.
Moving on to Web pages-Heath Bunting's cctv-world wide watch, where users watching four Webcams are encouraged to report crimes on an HTML form, which is then sent to the nearest police station-Fuller shows how cultural and technological components mesh uneasily in the project. Fuller argues that the "meme" (a kind of replicator that mutates as it passes from person to person or media to media, and works in combination with its immediate environment) or "bit" of identity constitutes a problem for surveillance. Packets of information-often the most common "meme" in Web technology-is, for Fuller, the standard object around which an ecology gets built. Networks check packets as they pass isolating passwords, URLS, credit data, and items of interest. The packet is the threshold of operations. The meme's "monitorability" enables not only dissemination through the network, but also its control. Memes, or what Fuller calls "flecks of identity" are referents in the flows of information-they "locate" and "situate" a user. Fuller's work is full of rich insights, especially into the ways in which forces of power operate within media ecologies. Even when the material/technological object, such as the camera or the Webcam turns in on itself, it is situated within a series of interrelated forces, some of which are antagonistic to the object. This insight-that contemporary media technology works within a field of antagonistic forces too-is Fuller's major contribution. Fuller is alert also to the potential within such force fields for subversion. Pirate radio and phreaking, therefore, emblematize how media ecologies create the context, possibility, and even modalities of political and social protest. Unfortunately, Fuller's style is a shade too digressive and aleatory for us to discover these insights. In his eagerness to incorporate as many theorists and philosophers of media/technology-he moves from Nietzsche to Susan Blackmore, sometimes within the space of a single paragraph-Fuller often takes a long time to get to his contribution to the debate or analysis. The problem, therefore, is mainly with style rather than content, and the arguments would have been perfectly fine if they had been couched in easier forms."

1.9085468E-4 = product of:
  0.003053675 = sum of:
    0.003053675 = weight(_text_:information in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003053675 = score(doc=3651,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.058186423 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

The fan of past documents may be seen across time as a philosophical "wake," translated documents as a sideways relationship and future documents as another fan spreading forward from a given document (p. 365). The "overlap of reading histories can be used to detect common interests among readers," (p. 365) and readers may be classified accordingly. Finally, Fairthorne rejects the notion of a "general" classification, which he regards as a mirage, to be replaced by a citation-type network to identify classes. An interesting feature of his work lies in his linkage between old and new documents via a bibliographic method-citations, authors' names, imprints, style, and vocabulary - rather than topical (subject) terms. This is an indirect method of creating classes. The subject (aboutness) is conceived as a finite, common sharing of knowledge over time (past, present, and future) as opposed to the more common hierarchy of topics in an infinite schema assumed to be universally useful. Fairthorne, a mathematician by training, is a prolific writer an the foundations of classification and information. His professional career includes work with the Royal Engineers Chemical Warfare Section and the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE). He was the founder of the Computing Unit which became the RAE Mathematics Department.

1.9085468E-4 = product of:
  0.003053675 = sum of:
    0.003053675 = weight(_text_:information in 1222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003053675 = score(doc=1222,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.058186423 = fieldWeight in 1222, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1222)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

CrossRef, the only full-blown application of the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®) System to date, is now a little over a year old. What started as a cooperative effort among publishers and technologists to prototype DOI-based linking of citations in e-journals evolved into an independent, non-profit enterprise in early 2000. We have made considerable headway during our first year, but there is still much to be done. When CrossRef went live with its collaborative linking service last June, it had enabled reference links in roughly 1,100 journals from a member base of 33 publishers, using a functional prototype system. The DOI-X prototype was described in an article published in D-Lib Magazine in February of 2000. On the occasion of CrossRef's first birthday as a live service, this article provides a non-technical overview of our progress to date and the major hurdles ahead. The electronic medium enriches the research literature arena for all players -- researchers, librarians, and publishers -- in numerous ways. Information has been made easier to discover, to share, and to sell. To take a simple example, the aggregation of book metadata by electronic booksellers was a huge boon to scholars seeking out obscure backlist titles, or discovering books they would never otherwise have known to exist. It was equally a boon for the publishers of those books, who saw an unprecedented surge in sales of backlist titles with the advent of centralized electronic bookselling. In the serials sphere, even in spite of price increases and the turmoil surrounding site licenses for some prime electronic content, libraries overall are now able to offer more content to more of their patrons. Yet undoubtedly, the key enrichment for academics and others navigating a scholarly corpus is linking, and in particular the linking that takes the reader out of one document and into another in the matter of a click or two. Since references are how authors make explicit the links between their work and precedent scholarship, what could be more fundamental to the reader than making those links immediately actionable? That said, automated linking is only really useful from a research perspective if it works across publications and across publishers. Not only do academics think about their own writings and those of their colleagues in terms of "author, title, rough date" -- the name of the journal itself is usually not high on the list of crucial identifying features -- but they are oblivious as to the identity of the publishers of all but their very favorite books and journals.

1.9085468E-4 = product of:
  0.003053675 = sum of:
    0.003053675 = weight(_text_:information in 3391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003053675 = score(doc=3391,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.058186423 = fieldWeight in 3391, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3391)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Content

Short Papers * A Database Backend for OWL, Jörg Henss, Joachim Kleb and Stephan Grimm. * Unifying SysML and OWL, Henson Graves. * The OWLlink Protocol, Thorsten Liebig, Marko Luther and Olaf Noppens. * A Reasoning Broker Framework for OWL, Juergen Bock, Tuvshintur Tserendorj, Yongchun Xu, Jens Wissmann and Stephan Grimm. * Change Representation For OWL 2 Ontologies, Raul Palma, Peter Haase, Oscar Corcho and Asunción Gómez-Pérez. * Practical Aspects of Query Rewriting for OWL 2, Héctor Pérez-Urbina, Ian Horrocks and Boris Motik. * CSage: Use of a Configurable Semantically Attributed Graph Editor as Framework for Editing and Visualization, Lawrence Levin. * A Conformance Test Suite for the OWL 2 RL/RDF Rules Language and the OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics, Michael Schneider and Kai Mainzer. * Improving the Data Quality of Relational Databases using OBDA and OWL 2 QL, Olivier Cure. * Temporal Classes and OWL, Natalya Keberle. * Using Ontologies for Medical Image Retrieval - An Experiment, Jasmin Opitz, Bijan Parsia and Ulrike Sattler. * Task Representation and Retrieval in an Ontology-Guided Modelling System, Yuan Ren, Jens Lemcke, Andreas Friesen, Tirdad Rahmani, Srdjan Zivkovic, Boris Gregorcic, Andreas Bartho, Yuting Zhao and Jeff Z. Pan. * A platform for reasoning with OWL-EL knowledge bases in a Peer-to-Peer environment, Alexander De Leon and Michel Dumontier. * Axiomé: a Tool for the Elicitation and Management of SWRL Rules, Saeed Hassanpour, Martin O'Connor and Amar Das. * SQWRL: A Query Language for OWL, Martin O'Connor and Amar Das. * Classifying ELH Ontologies In SQL Databases, Vincent Delaitre and Yevgeny Kazakov. * A Semantic Web Approach to Represent and Retrieve Information in a Corporate Memory, Ana B. Rios-Alvarado, R. Carolina Medina-Ramirez and Ricardo Marcelin-Jimenez. * Towards a Graphical Notation for OWL 2, Elisa Kendall, Roy Bell, Roger Burkhart, Mark Dutra and Evan Wallace.

1.7993951E-4 = product of:
  0.0028790322 = sum of:
    0.0028790322 = weight(_text_:information in 175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0028790322 = score(doc=175,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.054858685 = fieldWeight in 175, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=175)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Footnote

What is, after all the FRBR model? The question is asked in the subtitle itself: is it a "hype or cureall?" It certainly is the talk of the day in libraries and similar institutions, a very popular topic for professional meetings, a challenging task for system vendors and food for thought for scholars both in terminology and in content. As for the solutions it offers, they enable simplified and more structured catalogues of large collections and perhaps easier ways to cataloguing resources of many different types. Once implemented in catalogues, the benefits will be both on the librarian's side and on the end user's side. According to Patrick LeBoeuf the model is a beginning and there are two directions for its development as far as the authors of the articles imply: the first, oriented to the configuration of FRANAR or FRAR, the second, oriented to what has already been established and defined as FRSAR (Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records). The latter is meant to build a conceptual model for Group 3 entities within the FRBR framework related to the aboutness of the work and assist in an assessment of the potential for international sharing and use of subject authority data both within the library sector and beyond. A third direction, not present in the work considered, yet mentioned by the editor, is oriented towards the development of "the CIDOC CRM semantic model for cultural heritage information in museums and assimilated institutions" (p. 6). By merging the FRBR working group with the CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group a FRBR/CRM Harmonization Group has been created its scope being the "translation" of FRBR into object-oriented formalism. The work under review is the expected and welcome completion of the FRBR Final Report of 1998, addressing librarians, library science teaching staff, students, and library system vendors, a comprehensive source of information on theoretical aspects and practical application of the FRBR conceptual model. A good companion clarifying many FRBR issues the collection is remarkably well structured and offers a step-by-step insight into the model. An additional feature of the work is the very helpful index at the back of the book providing an easy access to the main topics discussed."

1.5904556E-4 = product of:
  0.002544729 = sum of:
    0.002544729 = weight(_text_:information in 3370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002544729 = score(doc=3370,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.048488684 = fieldWeight in 3370, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3370)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Content

Another challenge appears when, e.g., mapping Dewey class 890 Literatures of other specific languages and language families, which does not make sense in UDC in which all languages and literatures have equal status. Standard UDC schedules do not have a selection of preferred literatures and other literatures. In principle, UDC does not allow classes entitled 'others' which do not have defined semantic content. If entities are subdivided and there is no provision for an item outside the listed subclasses then this item is subsumed to a top class or a broader class where all unspecifiied or general members of that class may be expected. If specification is needed this can be divised by adding an alphabetical extension to the broader class. Here we have to find and list in the UDC Summary all literatures that are 'unpreferred' i.e. lumped in the 890 classes and map them again as many-to-one specific-to-broader match. The example below illustrates another interesting case. Classes Dewey 061 and UDC 06 cover roughy the same semantic field but in the subdivision the Dewey Summaries lists a combination of subject and place and as an enumerative classification, provides ready made numbers for combinations of place that are most common in an average (American?) library. This is a frequent approach in the schemes created with the physical book arrangement, i.e. library schelves, in mind. UDC, designed as an indexing language for information retrieval, keeps subject and place in separate tables and allows for any concept of place such as, e.g. (7) North America to be used in combination with any subject as these may coincide in documents. Thus combinations such as Newspapers in North America, or Organizations in North America would not be offered as ready made combinations. There is no selection of 'preferred' or 'most needed countries' or languages or cultures in the standard UDC edition: <Tabelle>

1.5904556E-4 = product of:
  0.002544729 = sum of:
    0.002544729 = weight(_text_:information in 4300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002544729 = score(doc=4300,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.048488684 = fieldWeight in 4300, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4300)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Content

6. Establishment of national Knowledge Organization Institutes should be scheduled by national chapters, planned energetically and submitted to corresponding administrative authorities for support. They could be attached to research institutions, e.g., the Max-Planck or Fraunhofer Institutes in Germany or to universities. Their scope and research areas relate to the elaboration of knowledge systems of subject related concepts, according to Desideratum 1, and may be connected to training activities and KOsubject-related research work. 7. ISKO experts should not accept to be impressed by Internet and Computer Science, but should demonstrate their expertise more actively on the public plane. They should tend to take a leading part in the ISKO Secretariats and the KO Institutes, and act as consultants and informants, as well as editors of statistics and other publications. 8. All colleagues trained in the field of classification/indexing and thesauri construction and active in different countries should be identified and approached for membership in ISKO. This would have to be accomplished by the General Secretariat with the collaboration of the experts in the different secretariats of the countries, as soon as they start to work. The more members ISKO will have, the greater will be its reputation and influence. But it will also prove its professionalism by the quality of its products, especially its innovating conceptual order systems to come. 9. ISKO should-especially in view of global expansion-intensify the promotion of knowledge about its own subject area through the publications mentioned here and in further publications as deemed necessary. It should be made clear that, especially in ISKO's own publications, professional subject indexes are a sine qua non. 10. 1) Knowledge Organization, having arisen from librarianship and documentation, the contents of which has many points of contact with numerous application fields, should-although still linked up with its areas of descent-be recognized in the long run as an independent autonomous discipline to be located under the science of science, since only thereby can it fully play its role as an equal partner in all application fields; and, 2) An "at-a-first-glance knowledge order" could be implemented through the Information Coding Classification (ICC), as this system is based on an entirely new approach, namely based on general object areas, thus deviating from discipline-oriented main classes of the current main universal classification systems. It can therefore recoup by simple display on screen the hitherto lost overview of all knowledge areas and fields. On "one look", one perceives 9 object areas subdivided into 9 aspects which break down into 81 subject areas with their 729 subject fields, including further special fields. The synthesis and place of order of all knowledge becomes thus evident at a glance to everybody. Nobody would any longer be irritated by the abundance of singular apparently unrelated knowledge fields or become hesitant in his/her understanding of the world.

1.2723646E-4 = product of:
  0.0020357834 = sum of:
    0.0020357834 = weight(_text_:information in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020357834 = score(doc=3401,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.03879095 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

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."