Search (94 results, page 1 of 5)

0.050925426 = product of:
  0.15277627 = sum of:
    0.15277627 = sum of:
      0.09779723 = weight(_text_:training in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09779723 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23690371 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.67046 = idf(docFreq=1125, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050723847 = queryNorm
          0.41281426 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.67046 = idf(docFreq=1125, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
      0.05497905 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05497905 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050723847 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper reviews library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2005-06. It covers pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of cataloging; Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (FRBR); metadata and its applications and relation to Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC); cataloging tools and standards; authority control; and recruitment, training, and the changing role of catalogers.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.04961206 = product of:
  0.07441809 = sum of:
    0.050364755 = weight(_text_:based in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050364755 = score(doc=2425,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.3295462 = fieldWeight in 2425, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2425)
    0.024053333 = product of:
      0.048106667 = sum of:
        0.048106667 = weight(_text_:22 in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048106667 = score(doc=2425,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2425, 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=2425)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The FRBR model is by many considered to be an important contribution to the next generation of bibliographic catalogues, but a major challenge for the library community is how to use this model on already existing MARC-based bibliographic catalogues. This problem requires a solution for the interpretation and conversion of MARC records, and a tool for this kind of conversion is developed as a part of the Norwegian BIBSYS FRBR project. The tool is based on a systematic approach to the interpretation and conversion process and is designed to be adaptable to the rules applied in different catalogues.

Source

Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006

0.045460265 = product of:
  0.068190396 = sum of:
    0.040700868 = weight(_text_:based in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040700868 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.26631355 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.027489524 = product of:
      0.05497905 = sum of:
        0.05497905 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05497905 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The paper performs a thought experiment on the concept of a record based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records and library system functions, and concludes that if we want to develop a functional bibliographic record we need to do it within the context of a flexible, functional library systems record structure. The article suggests a new way to look at the library systems record that would allow libraries to move forward in terms of technology but also in terms of serving library users.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.166-174

0.04252462 = product of:
  0.06378693 = sum of:
    0.04316979 = weight(_text_:based in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04316979 = score(doc=4752,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.28246817 = fieldWeight in 4752, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4752)
    0.020617142 = product of:
      0.041234285 = sum of:
        0.041234285 = weight(_text_:22 in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041234285 = score(doc=4752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4752, 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=4752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

As educational technology becomes pervasive, demand will grow for library content to be incorporated into courseware. Among the barriers impeding interoperability between libraries and educational tools is the difference in specifications commonly used for the exchange of digital objects and metadata. Among libraries, Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) is a new but increasingly popular standard; the IMS content-package (IMS-CP) plays a parallel role in educational technology. This article describes how METS-encoded library content can be converted into digital objects for IMS-compliant systems through an XSLT-based crosswalk. The conceptual models behind METS and IMS-CP are compared, the design and limitations of an XSLT-based translation are described, and the crosswalks are related to other techniques to enhance interoperability.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.69-81

0.034095198 = product of:
  0.051142793 = sum of:
    0.03052565 = weight(_text_:based in 4751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03052565 = score(doc=4751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 4751, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4751)
    0.020617142 = product of:
      0.041234285 = sum of:
        0.041234285 = weight(_text_:22 in 4751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041234285 = score(doc=4751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4751, 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=4751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The article discusses the future of the MARC formats and outlines how future cataloguing practice and bibliographic records might look. Background and basic functionality of the MARC formats are outlined, and it is pointed out that MARC is manifest in several different formats. This is illustrated through a comparison between the MARC21 format and the Danish MARC format "danMARC2". It is argued that present cataloguing codes and MARC formats are based primarily on the Paris principles and that "functional requirements for bibliographic records" (FRBR) would serve as a more solid and user-oriented platform for future development of cataloguing codes and formats. Furthermore, it is argued that MARC is a library-specific format, which results in neither exchange with library external sectors nor inclusion of other texts being facilitated. XML could serve as the technical platform for a model for future registrations, consisting of some core data and different supplements of data necessary for different sectors and purposes.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.40-51

0.034095198 = product of:
  0.051142793 = sum of:
    0.03052565 = weight(_text_:based in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03052565 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 3841, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3841)
    0.020617142 = product of:
      0.041234285 = sum of:
        0.041234285 = weight(_text_:22 in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041234285 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3841, 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=3841)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This entry describes the development of the MARC Communications format. After a brief overview of the initial 10 years it describes the succeeding phases of development up to the present. This takes the reader through the expansion of the format for all types of bibliographic data and for a multiple character scripts. At the same time a large business community was developing that offered products based on the format to the library community. The introduction of the Internet in the 1990s and the Web technology brought new opportunities and challenges and the format was adapted to this new environment. There has been a great deal of international adoption of the format that has continued into the 2000s. More recently new syntaxes for MARC 21 and models are being explored.

Date

27. 8.2011 14:22:38

0.028412666 = product of:
  0.042618997 = sum of:
    0.025438042 = weight(_text_:based in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025438042 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 2422, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2422)
    0.017180953 = product of:
      0.034361906 = sum of:
        0.034361906 = weight(_text_:22 in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034361906 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2422, 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=2422)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Catalogs have for centuries been the main tool that enabled users to search for items in a library by author, title, or subject. A catalog can be interpreted as a set of bibliographic records, where each record acts as a surrogate for a publication. Every record describes a specific publication and contains the data that is used to create the indexes of search systems and the information that is presented to the user. Bibliographic records are often captured and exchanged by the use of the MARC format. Although there are numerous rdquodialectsrdquo of the MARC format in use, they are usually crafted on the same basis and are interoperable with each other -to a certain extent. The data model of a MARC-based catalog, however, is rdquo[...] extremely non-normalized with excessive replication of datardquo [1]. For instance, a literary work that exists in numerous editions and translations is likely to yield a large result set because each edition or translation is represented by an individual record, that is unrelated to other records that describe the same work.

Source

Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 7th European Conference, proceedings / ECDL 2003, Trondheim, Norway, August 17-22, 2003

0.02444931 = product of:
  0.073347926 = sum of:
    0.073347926 = product of:
      0.14669585 = sum of:
        0.14669585 = weight(_text_:training in 67) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14669585 = score(doc=67,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23690371 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.67046 = idf(docFreq=1125, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.6192214 = fieldWeight in 67, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.67046 = idf(docFreq=1125, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=67)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.01943803 = product of:
  0.05831409 = sum of:
    0.05831409 = product of:
      0.11662818 = sum of:
        0.11662818 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11662818 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 5743, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5743)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

30. 3.2002 19:45:22

Source

Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.2, S.198-219

0.019186573 = product of:
  0.057559717 = sum of:
    0.057559717 = weight(_text_:based in 5104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057559717 = score(doc=5104,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.37662423 = fieldWeight in 5104, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5104)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes the characteristics of de jure standards developed by the formal standards organizations (ISO, ANSI, and NISO) and formal industry groups, and de facto standards developed by informal, self selected groups and companies. Compares this process with that used to develop Internet standards. Examines 3 key standards for the library community on this basis: standards that form the basis for encoding bibliographic data (MARC); standards for electronic documents (SGML-based), and standards for ordering and purchasing bibliographic items (EDIFACT-based)

0.01832635 = product of:
  0.05497905 = sum of:
    0.05497905 = product of:
      0.1099581 = sum of:
        0.1099581 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1099581 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2840, 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=2840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

0.017623993 = product of:
  0.052871976 = sum of:
    0.052871976 = weight(_text_:based in 5441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052871976 = score(doc=5441,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.34595144 = fieldWeight in 5441, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5441)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Over the past few years there has been a significant amount of work in the area of cataloging internet resources, primarily using new metadata standards like the Dublin Core, but there has been little work on applying new data description formats like SGML and XML to traditional cataloging practices. What little work has been done in the area of using SGML and XML for traditional bibliographic description has primarily been based on the concept of converting MARC tagging into XML tagging. I suggest that, rather than attempting to convert existing MARC tagging into a new syntax based on SGML or XML, a more fruitful possibility is to return to the cataloging standards and describe their inherent structure, learning from how MARC has been used successfully in modern OPAC while attempting to avoid MARC's rigid field-based restrictions.

0.016958695 = product of:
  0.050876085 = sum of:
    0.050876085 = weight(_text_:based in 6031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050876085 = score(doc=6031,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.33289194 = fieldWeight in 6031, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6031)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reviews the provision for bibliographic data within EDIFACT, compares those provisions with the BIC draft standards for bibliographic databases and examines the implications for MARC based standards. Outlines the role of the major players involved. Describes stanbdards dealing with EDIFACT in greatest detail. Describes the library systems using the records

0.016958695 = product of:
  0.050876085 = sum of:
    0.050876085 = weight(_text_:based in 6945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050876085 = score(doc=6945,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.33289194 = fieldWeight in 6945, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6945)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.016958695 = product of:
  0.050876085 = sum of:
    0.050876085 = weight(_text_:based in 3812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050876085 = score(doc=3812,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.33289194 = fieldWeight in 3812, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3812)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.016958695 = product of:
  0.050876085 = sum of:
    0.050876085 = weight(_text_:based in 6723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050876085 = score(doc=6723,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.33289194 = fieldWeight in 6723, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6723)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.016958695 = product of:
  0.050876085 = sum of:
    0.050876085 = weight(_text_:based in 6725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050876085 = score(doc=6725,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.33289194 = fieldWeight in 6725, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6725)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.016788252 = product of:
  0.050364755 = sum of:
    0.050364755 = weight(_text_:based in 3339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050364755 = score(doc=3339,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.3295462 = fieldWeight in 3339, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3339)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Catalogues have evolved from lists of physical items present in particular libraries into computerized access and retrieval tools for works dispersed across local and national boundaries. Works themselves are no longer constrained by physical form yet cataloguing rules have not evolved in parallel with these developments. Reanalyzes the nature of works and their publication in an approach based on object oriented modelling and demonstrates the advantages to be gained thereby. Suggests a strategic plan to enable an organic transformation to be made from current MARC based cataloguing to object oriented cataloguing. Proposes major revisions of MARC in order to allow records to maximize the benefits of both computerized databases and high speed data networks. This will involve a fundamental shift away from the AACR philosophy of description of, plus access to, physical items

0.016788252 = product of:
  0.050364755 = sum of:
    0.050364755 = weight(_text_:based in 892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050364755 = score(doc=892,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.3295462 = fieldWeight in 892, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=892)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Secondary information, e.g. MARC based bibliographic records, comprises structured data for identifying, tagging, retrieving and management of primary documents. SGML, the standard format for coding content and structure of primary documents, was introduced in 1986 as a publishing tool but is now being applied to bibliographic records. SGML now comprises standard definitions (DTD) for books, serials, articles and mathematical formulae. A simplified version (HTML) is used for Web pages. Pilot projects to develop SGML as a standard for bibliographic exchange include the Dublin Core, listing 13 descriptive elements for Internet documents; the French GRISELI programme using SGML for exchanging grey literature and US experiments on reformatting USMARC for use with SGML-based records

0.016035557 = product of:
  0.048106667 = sum of:
    0.048106667 = product of:
      0.09621333 = sum of:
        0.09621333 = weight(_text_:22 in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09621333 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7196, 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=7196)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1