Search (1668 results, page 2 of 84)

Priss, U.: Faceted knowledge representation (1999) 0.03

0.025825147 = product of:
  0.064562865 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=2654,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
    0.05502725 = sum of:
      0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.011051352 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
      0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043975897 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract: Faceted Knowledge Representation provides a formalism for implementing knowledge systems. The basic notions of faceted knowledge representation are "unit", "relation", "facet" and "interpretation". Units are atomic elements and can be abstract elements or refer to external objects in an application. Relations are sequences or matrices of 0 and 1's (binary matrices). Facets are relational structures that combine units and relations. Each facet represents an aspect or viewpoint of a knowledge system. Interpretations are mappings that can be used to translate between different representations. This paper introduces the basic notions of faceted knowledge representation. The formalism is applied here to an abstract modeling of a faceted thesaurus as used in information retrieval.
Date: 22. 1.2016 17:30:31
Type: a

Palm, F.: QVIZ : Query and context based visualization of time-spatial cultural dynamics (2007) 0.03

0.0252955 = product of:
  0.06323875 = sum of:
    0.009138121 = weight(_text_:a in 1289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009138121 = score(doc=1289,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 1289, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1289)
    0.054100625 = sum of:
      0.016407004 = weight(_text_:information in 1289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016407004 = score(doc=1289,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 1289, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1289)
      0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 1289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037693623 = score(doc=1289,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1289, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1289)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract: QVIZ will research and create a framework for visualizing and querying archival resources by a time-space interface based on maps and emergent knowledge structures. The framework will also integrate social software, such as wikis, in order to utilize knowledge in existing and new communities of practice. QVIZ will lead to improved information sharing and knowledge creation, easier access to information in a user-adapted context and innovative ways of exploring and visualizing materials over time, between countries and other administrative units. The common European framework for sharing and accessing archival information provided by the QVIZ project will open a considerably larger commercial market based on archival materials as well as a richer understanding of European history.
Content: Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

Gonzalez, L.: What is FRBR? (2005) 0.03
```
0.025204621 = product of:
  0.0420077 = sum of:
    0.008615503 = weight(_text_:a in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008615503 = score(doc=3401,freq=80.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
          8.944272 = tf(freq=80.0), with freq of:
            80.0 = termFreq=80.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
    0.031813435 = weight(_text_:91 in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031813435 = score(doc=3401,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25837386 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.123129465 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
    0.0015787645 = product of:
      0.003157529 = sum of:
        0.003157529 = weight(_text_:information in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003157529 = score(doc=3401,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
```
Abstract

This brief and gentle introduction to some key concepts laid out in the IFLA-produced Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records paper should be read by any librarian wondering what all the "ferber" fuss is about. Scratch that. It should be read by any librarian period. It's time for us to admit our library catalogs are a mess from a user's perspective, and FRBR can provide at least a partial solution to the problems we face in fixing our systems. Therefore, knowledge of the basic concepts that are already beginning to transform our bibliographic systems should be considered basic, foundational, professional knowledge. So start here, if you must, but then feel free to follow up with the full report.

Content

"Catalogers, catalog managers, and others in library technical services have become increasingly interested in, worried over, and excited about FRBR (the acronym for Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records). Staff outside of the management of the library's bibliographic database may wonder what the fuss is about (FERBER? FURBUR?), assuming that FRBR is just another addition to the stable of acronyms that catalogers bandy about, a mate or sibling to MARC and AACR2. FRBR, however, has the potential to inspire dramatic changes in library catalogs, and those changes will greatly impact how reference and resource sharing staff and patrons use this core tool. FRBR is a conceptual model for how bibliographic databases might be structured, considering what functions bibliographic records should fulfill in an era when card catalogs are databases with unique possibilities. In some ways FRBR clarifies certain cataloging practices that librarians have been using for over 160 years, since Sir Anthony Panizzi, Keeper of the Printed Books at the British Museum, introduced a set of 91 rules to catalog the print collections of the museum. Sir Anthony believed that patrons should be able to find a particular work by looking in the catalog, that all of an author's works should be retrievable, and that all editions of a work should be assembled together. In other ways, FRBR extends upon past practice to take advantage fully of the capabilities of digital technology to associate bibliographic records in ways a card catalog cannot. FRBR was prepared by a study group assembled by IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) that included staff of the Library of Congress (LC). The final report of the group, "Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records," is available online. The group began by asking how an online library catalog might better meet users' needs to find, identify, select, and obtain the resources they want.
Better navigation FRBR is a way of explaining the bibliographic world, in a library context, to allow for a better arrangement and collocation of records in a bibliographic database and, consequently, better navigation. FRBR could make possible a catalog that would group all the bibliographic records for all the filmed versions of Romeo and Juliet in sets organized by the language of the production, for example. Within each language's set would be separate subsets for those on DVD and those on videocassette. This would eliminate the screen after screen of displays of bibliographic headings, each of which a user has to investigate to determine if the record is really for the resource he or she needs ("Where's the movie version on DVD?") The larger the size of the database, the more such organization promises cleaner, more navigable displays to searchers. This is why FRBR is especially important in resource sharing environments-where databases seem to grow exponentially. From items to works One of the bases for that organization is FRBR's conception of bibliographic resources, which fall into four "entities": item, manifestation, expression, and work. An "item" is familiar to us: the object that sits on a shelf, which gets checked out, damaged, repaired, then eventually discarded. In the current era, it may not be physical but instead virtual, like an ebook. The "item," an individual copy, is a single example of a "manifestation," the publication by a certain publisher of a text, or of a sound or video recording. Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf, published in hardback by Farrar, Straus and Giroux in 1999, is one manifestation. Heaney's translation of Beowulf published in paperback by W.W. Norton in 2000 is another. Heaney's Beowulf as it appears in the collection Wizards: Stories of Magic, Mischief and Mayhem (Thunder's Mouth, 2001) is yet another manifestation. Manifestations are generally what catalogers catalog. All of these are manifestations of an "expression," a more abstract and intangible entity. Heaney's translation of Beowulf, independent of who is publishing it and when, is one "expression" of that work. The translation by Barry Tharaud is another.
What are these two Beowulf translations "expressions" of? I used the term work above, an even more abstract concept in the FRBR model. In this case, the "work" is Beowulf , that ancient intellectual creation or effort that over time has been expressed in multiple ways, each manifested in several different ways itself, with one or more items in each manifestation. This is a pretty gross oversimplification of FRBR, which also details other relationships: among these entities; between these entities and various persons (such as creators, publishers, and owners); and between these entities and their subjects. It also specifies characteristics, or "attributes," of the different types of entities (such as title, physical media, date, availability, and more.). But it should be enough to grasp the possibilities. Now apply it Imagine that you have a patron who needs a copy of Heaney's translation of Beowulf . She doesn't care who published it or when, only that it's Heaney's translation. What if you (or your patron) could place an interlibrary loan call on that expression, instead of looking through multiple bibliographic records (as of March, OCLC's WorldCat had nine regular print editions) for multiple manifestations and then judging which record is the best bet on which to place a request? Combine that with functionality that lets you specify "not Braille, not large print," and it could save you time. Now imagine a patron in want of a copy, any copy, in English, of Romeo and Juliet. Saving staff time means saving money. Whether or not this actually happens depends upon what the library community decides to do with FRBR. It is not a set of cataloging rules or a system design, but it can influence both. Several library system vendors are working with FRBR ideas; VTLS's current integrated library system product Virtua incorporates FRBR concepts in its design. More vendors may follow. How the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of Anglo-American Cataloging Rules develops the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR) to incorporate FRBR will necessarily be a strong determinant of how records work in a "FRBR-ized" bibliographic database.
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."

Information als Rohstoff für Innovation : Programm der Bundesregierung 1996-2000 (1996) 0.03

0.025155311 = product of:
  0.12577656 = sum of:
    0.12577656 = sum of:
      0.025260232 = weight(_text_:information in 5449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025260232 = score(doc=5449,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 5449, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5449)
      0.100516334 = weight(_text_:22 in 5449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.100516334 = score(doc=5449,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5449, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5449)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date: 22. 2.1997 19:26:34

Ask me[@sk.me]: your global information guide : der Wegweiser durch die Informationswelten (1996) 0.03

0.025155311 = product of:
  0.12577656 = sum of:
    0.12577656 = sum of:
      0.025260232 = weight(_text_:information in 5837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025260232 = score(doc=5837,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 5837, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5837)
      0.100516334 = weight(_text_:22 in 5837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.100516334 = score(doc=5837,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5837, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5837)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date: 30.11.1996 13:22:37

Bittner, T.; Donnelly, M.; Winter, S.: Ontology and semantic interoperability (2006) 0.02

0.024290197 = product of:
  0.06072549 = sum of:
    0.004086692 = weight(_text_:a in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004086692 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 4820, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4820)
    0.0566388 = sum of:
      0.018945174 = weight(_text_:information in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018945174 = score(doc=4820,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4820, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4820)
      0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037693623 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4820, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4820)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract: One of the major problems facing systems for Computer Aided Design (CAD), Architecture Engineering and Construction (AEC) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) applications today is the lack of interoperability among the various systems. When integrating software applications, substantial di culties can arise in translating information from one application to the other. In this paper, we focus on semantic di culties that arise in software integration. Applications may use di erent terminologies to describe the same domain. Even when appli-cations use the same terminology, they often associate di erent semantics with the terms. This obstructs information exchange among applications. To cir-cumvent this obstacle, we need some way of explicitly specifying the semantics for each terminology in an unambiguous fashion. Ontologies can provide such specification. It will be the task of this paper to explain what ontologies are and how they can be used to facilitate interoperability between software systems used in computer aided design, architecture engineering and construction, and geographic information processing.
Date: 3.12.2016 18:39:22
Type: a

Priss, U.: Description logic and faceted knowledge representation (1999) 0.02

0.024035787 = product of:
  0.060089465 = sum of:
    0.012923255 = weight(_text_:a in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012923255 = score(doc=2655,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.24171482 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
    0.04716621 = sum of:
      0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009472587 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2655, 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=2655)
      0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037693623 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract: The term "facet" was introduced into the field of library classification systems by Ranganathan in the 1930's [Ranganathan, 1962]. A facet is a viewpoint or aspect. In contrast to traditional classification systems, faceted systems are modular in that a domain is analyzed in terms of baseline facets which are then synthesized. In this paper, the term "facet" is used in a broader meaning. Facets can describe different aspects on the same level of abstraction or the same aspect on different levels of abstraction. The notion of facets is related to database views, multicontexts and conceptual scaling in formal concept analysis [Ganter and Wille, 1999], polymorphism in object-oriented design, aspect-oriented programming, views and contexts in description logic and semantic networks. This paper presents a definition of facets in terms of faceted knowledge representation that incorporates the traditional narrower notion of facets and potentially facilitates translation between different knowledge representation formalisms. A goal of this approach is a modular, machine-aided knowledge base design mechanism. A possible application is faceted thesaurus construction for information retrieval and data mining. Reasoning complexity depends on the size of the modules (facets). A more general analysis of complexity will be left for future research.
Date: 22. 1.2016 17:30:31
Type: a

Schlögl, C.: Zukunft der Informationswissenschaft : Gegenstandsbereich und Perspektiven (2014) 0.02

0.023918023 = product of:
  0.05979506 = sum of:
    0.004767807 = weight(_text_:a in 3677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004767807 = score(doc=3677,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3677, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3677)
    0.05502725 = sum of:
      0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 3677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.011051352 = score(doc=3677,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3677, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3677)
      0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 3677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043975897 = score(doc=3677,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3677, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3677)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract: Bevor ich einige Gedanken über die Zukunft der Informationswissenschaft in den deutschsprachigen Ländern anstelle, möchte ich zunächst versuchen, ihren Gegenstandsbereich zu umreißen. Bei einem schwer greifbaren Begriff wie "Information" ist es nicht überraschend, wenn es keine allgemeine Übereinstimmung über die zentralen Themen der Informationswissenschaft gibt.
Date: 22. 6.2017 18:04:28
Type: a

Dunning, A.: Do we still need search engines? (1999) 0.02

0.022984518 = product of:
  0.05746129 = sum of:
    0.013485395 = weight(_text_:a in 6021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013485395 = score(doc=6021,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 6021, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6021)
    0.043975897 = product of:
      0.087951794 = sum of:
        0.087951794 = weight(_text_:22 in 6021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.087951794 = score(doc=6021,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6021, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6021)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Source: Ariadne. 1999, no.22
Type: a

Panzer, M.: Designing identifiers for the DDC (2007) 0.02
```
0.022406869 = product of:
  0.05601717 = sum of:
    0.009138121 = weight(_text_:a in 1752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009138121 = score(doc=1752,freq=40.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 1752, product of:
          6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
            40.0 = termFreq=40.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1752)
    0.04687905 = sum of:
      0.0047362936 = weight(_text_:information in 1752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0047362936 = score(doc=1752,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.058186423 = fieldWeight in 1752, 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=1752)
      0.042142756 = weight(_text_:22 in 1752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042142756 = score(doc=1752,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.2595412 = fieldWeight in 1752, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1752)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
```
Content

"Although the Dewey Decimal Classification is currently available on the web to subscribers as WebDewey and Abridged WebDewey in the OCLC Connexion service and in an XML version to licensees, OCLC does not provide any "web services" based on the DDC. By web services, we mean presentation of the DDC to other machines (not humans) for uses such as searching, browsing, classifying, mapping, harvesting, and alerting. In order to build web-accessible services based on the DDC, several elements have to be considered. One of these elements is the design of an appropriate Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) structure for Dewey. The design goals of mapping the entity model of the DDC into an identifier space can be summarized as follows: * Common locator for Dewey concepts and associated resources for use in web services and web applications * Use-case-driven, but not directly related to and outlasting a specific use case (persistency) * Retraceable path to a concept rather than an abstract identification, reusing a means of identification that is already present in the DDC and available in existing metadata. We have been working closely with our colleagues in the OCLC Office of Research (especially Andy Houghton as well as Eric Childress, Diane Vizine-Goetz, and Stu Weibel) on a preliminary identifier syntax. The basic identifier format we are currently exploring is: http://dewey.info/{aspect}/{object}/{locale}/{type}/{version}/{resource} where * {aspect} is the aspect associated with an {object}-the current value set of aspect contains "concept", "scheme", and "index"; additional ones are under exploration * {object} is a type of {aspect} * {locale} identifies a Dewey translation * {type} identifies a Dewey edition type and contains, at a minimum, the values "edn" for the full edition or "abr" for the abridged edition * {version} identifies a Dewey edition version * {resource} identifies a resource associated with an {object} in the context of {locale}, {type}, and {version}
Some examples of identifiers for concepts follow: <http://dewey.info/concept/338.4/en/edn/22/> This identifier is used to retrieve or identify the 338.4 concept in the English-language version of Edition 22. <http://dewey.info/concept/338.4/de/edn/22/> This identifier is used to retrieve or identify the 338.4 concept in the German-language version of Edition 22. <http://dewey.info/concept/333.7-333.9/> This identifier is used to retrieve or identify the 333.7-333.9 concept across all editions and language versions. <http://dewey.info/concept/333.7-333.9/about.skos> This identifier is used to retrieve a SKOS representation of the 333.7-333.9 concept (using the "resource" element). There are several open issues at this preliminary stage of development: Use cases: URIs need to represent the range of statements or questions that could be submitted to a Dewey web service. Therefore, it seems that some general questions have to be answered first: What information does an agent have when coming to a Dewey web service? What kind of questions will such an agent ask? Placement of the {locale} component: It is still an open question if the {locale} component should be placed after the {version} component instead (<http://dewey.info/concept/338.4/edn/22/en>) to emphasize that the most important instantiation of a Dewey class is its edition, not its language version. From a services point of view, however, it could make more sense to keep the current arrangement, because users are more likely to come to the service with a present understanding of the language version they are seeking without knowing the specifics of a certain edition in which they are trying to find topics. Identification of other Dewey entities: The goal is to create a locator that does not answer all, but a lot of questions that could be asked about the DDC. Which entities are missing but should be surfaced for services or user agents? How will those services or agents interact with them? Should some entities be rendered in a different way as presented? For example, (how) should the DDC Summaries be retrievable? Would it be necessary to make the DDC Manual accessible through this identifier structure?"

Stapleton, M.; Adams, M.: Faceted categorisation for the corporate desktop : visualisation and interaction using metadata to enhance user experience (2007) 0.02

0.02207063 = product of:
  0.055176575 = sum of:
    0.004086692 = weight(_text_:a in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004086692 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
    0.051089883 = sum of:
      0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013396261 = score(doc=718,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
      0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037693623 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract: Mark Stapleton and Matt Adamson began their presentation by describing how Dow Jones' Factiva range of information services processed an average of 170,000 documents every day, drawn from over 10,000 sources in 22 languages. These documents are categorized within five facets: Company, Subject, Industry, Region and Language. The digital feeds received from information providers undergo a series of processing stages, initially to prepare them for automatic categorization and then to format them ready for distribution. The categorization stage is able to handle 98% of documents automatically, the remaining 2% requiring some form of human intervention. Depending on the source, categorization can involve any combination of 'Autocoding', 'Dictionary-based Categorizing', 'Rules-based Coding' or 'Manual Coding'

Franke, F.: ¬Das Framework for Information Literacy : neue Impulse für die Förderung von Informationskompetenz in Deutschland?! (2017) 0.02

0.02207063 = product of:
  0.055176575 = sum of:
    0.004086692 = weight(_text_:a in 2248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004086692 = score(doc=2248,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 2248, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2248)
    0.051089883 = sum of:
      0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 2248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013396261 = score(doc=2248,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2248, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2248)
      0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 2248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037693623 = score(doc=2248,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2248, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2248)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract: Das Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education wurde im Januar 2016 vom Vorstand der Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) beschlossen. Es beruht auf der Idee von "Threshold Concepts" und sieht Informationskompetenz in einem engen Zusammenhang mit Wissenschaft und Forschung. Dadurch legt es bei der Vermittlung von Informationskompetenz eine starke Betonung auf das "Warum", nicht nur auf das "Was". Der Ansatz des Framework wird vielfach kontrovers diskutiert. Bietet er tatsächlich eine neue Sichtweise auf die Förderung von Informationskompetenz oder ist er überwiegend alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? Kann das Framework neue Impulse für die Aktivitäten an den Bibliotheken in Deutschland setzen oder beschreibt es etwas, was wir längst machen? Der Beitrag versucht, Anregungen zu geben, welche Konsequenzen das Framework für unsere Kurse haben kann und welche veränderten Lernziele mit ihm verbunden sein können. Dabei plädiert er für ein umfassendes Verständnis von Informationskompetenz, das sich nicht auf Einzelaspekte wie Recherchekompetenz beschränkt.
Source: o-bib: Das offene Bibliotheksjournal. 4(2017) Nr.4, S.22-29
Type: a

Delsey, T.: ¬The Making of RDA (2016) 0.02

0.021697827 = product of:
  0.054244567 = sum of:
    0.007078358 = weight(_text_:a in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007078358 = score(doc=2946,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
    0.04716621 = sum of:
      0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009472587 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2946, 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=2946)
      0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037693623 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract: The author revisits the development of RDA from its inception in 2005 through to its initial release in 2010. The development effort is set in the context of an evolving digital environment that was transforming both the production and dissemination of information resources and the technologies used to create, store, and access data describing those resources. The author examines the interplay between strategic commitments to align RDA with new conceptual models, emerging database structures, and metadata developments in allied communities, on the one hand, and compatibility with AACR2 legacy databases on the other. Aspects of the development effort examined include the structuring of RDA as a resource description language, organizing the new standard as a working tool, and refining guidelines and instructions for recording RDA data.
Date: 17. 5.2016 19:22:40
Type: a

Mitchell, J.S.: DDC 22 : an introduction (2003) 0.02

0.021573743 = product of:
  0.053934358 = sum of:
    0.004767807 = weight(_text_:a in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004767807 = score(doc=1936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1936)
    0.04916655 = product of:
      0.0983331 = sum of:
        0.0983331 = weight(_text_:22 in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0983331 = score(doc=1936,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.6055961 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1936)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract: Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index, Edition 22 (DDC 22) will be issued simultaneously in print and web versions in July 2003. The new edition is the first full print update to the Dewey Decimal Classification system in seven years-it includes several significant updates and many new numbers and topics. DDC 22 also features some fundamental structural changes that have been introduced with the goals of promoting classifier efficiency and improving the DDC for use in a variety of applications in the web environment. Most importantly, the content of the new edition has been shaped by the needs and recommendations of Dewey users around the world. The worldwide user community has an important role in shaping the future of the DDC.
Object: DDC-22

Freyberg, L.: ¬Die Lesbarkeit der Welt : Rezension zu 'The Concept of Information in Library and Information Science. A Field in Search of Its Boundaries: 8 Short Comments Concerning Information'. In: Cybernetics and Human Knowing. Vol. 22 (2015), 1, 57-80. Kurzartikel von Luciano Floridi, Søren Brier, Torkild Thellefsen, Martin Thellefsen, Bent Sørensen, Birger Hjørland, Brenda Dervin, Ken Herold, Per Hasle und Michael Buckland (2016) 0.02
```
0.02139071 = product of:
  0.053476773 = sum of:
    0.0047189053 = weight(_text_:a in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0047189053 = score(doc=3335,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.088261776 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
    0.048757866 = sum of:
      0.023628784 = weight(_text_:information in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023628784 = score(doc=3335,freq=28.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.29028487 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
            5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
              28.0 = termFreq=28.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
      0.025129084 = weight(_text_:22 in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025129084 = score(doc=3335,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3335, 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=3335)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
```
Abstract

Es ist wieder an der Zeit den Begriff "Information" zu aktualisieren beziehungsweise einen Bericht zum Status Quo zu liefern. Information ist der zentrale Gegenstand der Informationswissenschaft und stellt einen der wichtigsten Forschungsgegenstände der Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft dar. Erstaunlicherweise findet jedoch ein stetiger Diskurs, der mit der kritischen Auseinandersetzung und der damit verbundenen Aktualisierung von Konzepten in den Geisteswissensschaften vergleichbar ist, zumindest im deutschsprachigen Raum1 nicht konstant statt. Im Sinne einer theoretischen Grundlagenforschung und zur Erarbeitung einer gemeinsamen begrifflichen Matrix wäre dies aber sicherlich wünschenswert. Bereits im letzten Jahr erschienen in dem von Søren Brier (Siehe "The foundation of LIS in information science and semiotics"2 sowie "Semiotics in Information Science. An Interview with Søren Brier on the application of semiotic theories and the epistemological problem of a transdisciplinary Information Science"3) herausgegebenen Journal "Cybernetics and Human Knowing" acht lesenswerte Stellungnahmen von namhaften Philosophen beziehungsweise Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaftlern zum Begriff der Information. Unglücklicherweise ist das Journal "Cybernetics & Human Knowing" in Deutschland schwer zugänglich, da es sich nicht um ein Open-Access-Journal handelt und lediglich von acht deutschen Bibliotheken abonniert wird.4 Aufgrund der schlechten Verfügbarkeit scheint es sinnvoll hier eine ausführliche Besprechung dieser acht Kurzartikel anzubieten.
Das Journal, das sich laut Zusatz zum Hauptsachtitel thematisch mit "second order cybernetics, autopoiesis and cyber-semiotics" beschäftigt, existiert seit 1992/93 als Druckausgabe. Seit 1998 (Jahrgang 5, Heft 1) wird es parallel kostenpflichtig elektronisch im Paket über den Verlag Imprint Academic in Exeter angeboten. Das Konzept Information wird dort aufgrund der Ausrichtung, die man als theoretischen Beitrag zu den Digital Humanities (avant la lettre) ansehen könnte, regelmäßig behandelt. Insbesondere die phänomenologisch und mathematisch fundierte Semiotik von Charles Sanders Peirce taucht in diesem Zusammenhang immer wieder auf. Dabei spielt stets die Verbindung zur Praxis, vor allem im Bereich Library- and Information Science (LIS), eine große Rolle, die man auch bei Brier selbst, der in seinem Hauptwerk "Cybersemiotics" die Peirceschen Zeichenkategorien unter anderem auf die bibliothekarische Tätigkeit des Indexierens anwendet,5 beobachten kann. Die Ausgabe 1/ 2015 der Zeitschrift fragt nun "What underlines Information?" und beinhaltet unter anderem Artikel zum Entwurf einer Philosophie der Information des Chinesen Wu Kun sowie zu Peirce und Spencer Brown. Die acht Kurzartikel zum Informationsbegriff in der Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft wurden von den Thellefsen-Brüdern (Torkild und Martin) sowie Bent Sørensen, die auch selbst gemeinsam einen der Kommentare verfasst haben.

Theme

Information

Type

a

Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (2003) 0.02

0.021178266 = product of:
  0.052945666 = sum of:
    0.005779455 = weight(_text_:a in 1652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005779455 = score(doc=1652,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1652, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1652)
    0.04716621 = sum of:
      0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 1652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009472587 = score(doc=1652,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1652, 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=1652)
      0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 1652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037693623 = score(doc=1652,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1652, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1652)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract: This document is the formal definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model ("CRM"), a formal ontology intended to facilitate the integration, mediation and interchange of heterogeneous cultural heritage information. The CRM is the culmination of more than a decade of standards development work by the International Committee for Documentation (CIDOC) of the International Council of Museums (ICOM). Work on the CRM itself began in 1996 under the auspices of the ICOM-CIDOC Documentation Standards Working Group. Since 2000, development of the CRM has been officially delegated by ICOM-CIDOC to the CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group, which collaborates with the ISO working group ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 to bring the CRM to the form and status of an International Standard.
Date: 6. 8.2010 14:22:28

Goldberga, A.: Synergy towards shared standards for ALM : Latvian scenario (2008) 0.02

0.021178266 = product of:
  0.052945666 = sum of:
    0.005779455 = weight(_text_:a in 2322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005779455 = score(doc=2322,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2322, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2322)
    0.04716621 = sum of:
      0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 2322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009472587 = score(doc=2322,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2322, 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=2322)
      0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 2322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037693623 = score(doc=2322,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2322, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2322)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract: The report reflects the Latvian scenario in co-operation for standardization of memory institutions. Differences and problems as well as benefits and possible solutions, tasks and activities of Standardization Technical Committee for Archives, Libraries and Museums Work (MABSTK) are analysed. Map of standards as a vision for ALM collaboration in standardization and "Digitizer's Handbook" (translated in English) prepared by the Competence Centre for Digitization of the National Library of Latvia (NLL) are presented. Shortcut to building the National Digital Library Letonica and its digital architecture (with pilot project about the Latvian composer Jazeps Vitols and the digital collection of expresident of Latvia Vaira Vike-Freiberga) reflects the practical co-operation between different players.
Content: Beitrag während: World library and information congress: 74th IFLA general conference and council, 10-14 August 2008, Québec, Canada.
Date: 26.12.2011 13:33:22

Atran, S.; Medin, D.L.; Ross, N.: Evolution and devolution of knowledge : a tale of two biologies (2004) 0.02

0.021178266 = product of:
  0.052945666 = sum of:
    0.005779455 = weight(_text_:a in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005779455 = score(doc=479,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
    0.04716621 = sum of:
      0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009472587 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 479, 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=479)
      0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037693623 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date: 23. 1.2022 10:22:18
Theme: Information
Type: a

Wolchover, N.: Wie ein Aufsehen erregender Beweis kaum Beachtung fand (2017) 0.02

0.020493407 = product of:
  0.051233515 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=3582,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
    0.044422362 = product of:
      0.088844724 = sum of:
        0.088844724 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.088844724 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date: 22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38
Type: a

Jörs, B.: ¬Ein kleines Fach zwischen "Daten" und "Wissen" II : Anmerkungen zum (virtuellen) "16th International Symposium of Information Science" (ISI 2021", Regensburg) (2021) 0.02

0.020241829 = product of:
  0.05060457 = sum of:
    0.0034055763 = weight(_text_:a in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0034055763 = score(doc=330,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 330, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=330)
    0.047198996 = sum of:
      0.015787644 = weight(_text_:information in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015787644 = score(doc=330,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 330, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=330)
      0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031411353 = score(doc=330,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 330, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=330)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract: Nur noch Informationsethik, Informationskompetenz und Information Assessment? Doch gerade die Abschottung von anderen Disziplinen verstärkt die Isolation des "kleinen Faches" Informationswissenschaft in der Scientific Community. So bleiben ihr als letzte "eigenständige" Forschungsrandgebiete nur die, die Wolf Rauch als Keynote Speaker bereits in seinem einführenden, historisch-genetischen Vortrag zur Lage der Informationswissenschaft auf der ISI 2021 benannt hat: "Wenn die universitäre Informationswissenschaft (zumindest in Europa) wohl kaum eine Chance hat, im Bereich der Entwicklung von Systemen und Anwendungen wieder an die Spitze der Entwicklung vorzustoßen, bleiben ihr doch Gebiete, in denen ihr Beitrag in der kommenden Entwicklungsphase dringend erforderlich sein wird: Informationsethik, Informationskompetenz, Information Assessment" (Wolf Rauch: Was aus der Informationswissenschaft geworden ist; in: Thomas Schmidt; Christian Wolff (Eds): Information between Data and Knowledge. Schriften zur Informationswissenschaft 74, Regensburg, 2021, Seiten 20-22 - siehe auch die Rezeption des Beitrages von Rauch durch Johannes Elia Panskus, Was aus der Informationswissenschaft geworden ist. Sie ist in der Realität angekommen, in: Open Password, 17. März 2021). Das ist alles? Ernüchternd.
Type: a

Search (1668 results, page 2 of 84)

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

Themes

Subjects

Classifications