Search (39 results, page 1 of 2)

0.025822971 = product of:
  0.12911485 = sum of:
    0.12911485 = weight(_text_:context in 6090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12911485 = score(doc=6090,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.7326775 = fieldWeight in 6090, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6090)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.024017572 = product of:
  0.06004393 = sum of:
    0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 4271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04841807 = score(doc=4271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 4271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4271)
    0.011625858 = product of:
      0.034877572 = sum of:
        0.034877572 = weight(_text_:29 in 4271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034877572 = score(doc=4271,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4271, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4271)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The World Wide Web was created in 1989, but it has already become a major information channel and source, influencing our everyday lives, commercial transactions, and scientific communication, to mention just a few areas. The seventeenth-century philosopher Descartes proclaimed, "I think, therefore I am" (cogito, ergo sum). Today the Web is such an integral part of our lives that we could rephrase Descartes' statement as "I have a Web presence, therefore I am." Because many people, companies, and organizations take this notion seriously, in addition to more substantial reasons for publishing information an the Web, the number of Web pages is in the billions and growing constantly. However, it is not sufficient to have a Web presence; tools that enable users to locate Web pages are needed as well. The major tools for discovering and locating information an the Web are search engines. This review discusses the use of Web search engines in information science research. Before going into detail, we should define the terms "information science," "Web search engine," and "use" in the context of this review.

Date

23.10.2005 18:29:16

0.020367354 = product of:
  0.050918385 = sum of:
    0.032278713 = weight(_text_:context in 662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032278713 = score(doc=662,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.18316938 = fieldWeight in 662, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=662)
    0.018639674 = weight(_text_:system in 662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018639674 = score(doc=662,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 662, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=662)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The CIBER group at University College London are currently evaluating a distance education initiative funded by the Department of Health, providing in-service training to NHS staff via DiTV and satellite to PC systems. This paper aims to provide the context for the project by outlining a short history of distance education, describing the media used in providing remote education, and to review research literature on achievement, attitude, barriers to learning and learner characteristics. Design/methodology/approach - Literature review, with particular, although not exclusive, emphasis on health. Findings - The literature shows little difference in achievement between distance and traditional learners, although using a variety of media, both to deliver pedagogic material and to facilitate communication, does seem to enhance learning. Similarly, attitudinal studies appear to show that the greater number of channels offered, the more positive students are about their experiences. With regard to barriers to completing courses, the main problems appear to be family or work obligations. Research limitations/implications - The research work this review seeks to consider is examining "on-demand" showing of filmed lectures via a DiTV system. The literature on DiTV applications research, however, is dominated by studies of simultaneous viewing by on-site and remote students, rather than "on-demand". Practical implications - Current research being carried out by the authors should enhance the findings accrued by the literature, by exploring the impact of "on-demand" video material, delivered by DiTV - something no previous research appears to have examined. Originality/value - Discusses different electronic systems and their exploitation for distance education, and cross-references these with several aspects evaluated in the literature: achievement, attitude, barriers to take-up or success, to provide a holistic picture hitherto missing from the literature.

0.016772512 = product of:
  0.08386256 = sum of:
    0.08386256 = weight(_text_:context in 4294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08386256 = score(doc=4294,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.475888 = fieldWeight in 4294, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4294)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This chapter has three purposes: to illuminate the ways in which people discover, shape, or create information as part of their lives and work; to consider how the resources and rules of people's situations facilitate or limit discovery of information; and to introduce the idea of a sociotechnical systems design science that is founded in part an understanding the discovery of information in context. In addressing these purposes the chapter focuses an both theoretical and research works in information studies and related fields that shed light on information as something that is embedded in the fabric of people's lives and work. Thus, the discovery of information view presented here characterizes information as being constructed through involvement in life's activities, problems, tasks, and social and technological structures, as opposed to being independent and context free. Given this process view, discovering information entails engagement, reflection, learning, and action-all the behaviors that research subjects often speak of as making sense-above and beyond the traditional focus of the information studies field: seeking without consideration of connections across time.

0.0107641 = product of:
  0.0538205 = sum of:
    0.0538205 = weight(_text_:index in 3025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0538205 = score(doc=3025,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 3025, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3025)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper surveys knowledge management (KM) development using a literature review and classification of articles from 1995 to 2004 with a keyword index and article abstract in order to explore how KM performance evaluation has developed during this period. Based on the scope of 76 articles from 78 academic journals of KM, this paper surveys and classifies KM measurements using the following eight categories: qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis, financial indicator analysis, non-financial indicator analysis, internal performance analysis, external performance analysis, project-oriented analysis, and organizational-oriented analysis together with their measurement matrices for different research and problem domains. Discussion is presented, indicating the followings future development directions for KM performance evaluation: (1) KM performance evaluation is getting more important. (2) The quantitative analysis is the primary methodology in KM performance evaluation. (3) Firms are now highlighting the KM performance of competitors, through benchmarking or best practices, rather than internally auditing KM performance via balanced scorecard. (4) Firms may begin to focus more on project management measurement, than on the entire organization.

0.009683615 = product of:
  0.04841807 = sum of:
    0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 4293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04841807 = score(doc=4293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 4293, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4293)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A community of practice has recently been defined as "a flexible group of professionals, informally bound by common interests, who interact through interdependent tasks guided by a common purpose thereby embodying a store of common knowledge" (Jubert, 1999, p. 166). The association of communities of practice with the production of collective knowledge has long been recognized, and they have been objects of study for a number of decades in the context of professional communication, particularly communication in science (Abbott, 1988; Bazerman & Paradis, 1991). Recently, however, they have been invoked in the domain of organization studies as sites where people learn and share insights. If, as Stinchcombe suggests, an organization is "a set of stable social relations, dehberately created, with the explicit intention of continuously accomplishing some specific goals or purposes" (Stinchcombe, 1965, p. 142), where does this "flexible" and "embodied" source of knowledge fit? Can communities of practice be harnessed, engineered, and managed like other organizational groups, or does their strength lie in the fact that they operate outside the stable and persistent social relations that characterize the organization?

0.007908144 = product of:
  0.03954072 = sum of:
    0.03954072 = weight(_text_:system in 4287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03954072 = score(doc=4287,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 4287, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4287)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Imagine a world where you walk up to a computer and sing the song fragment that has been plaguing you since breakfast. The computer accepts your off-key singing, corrects your request, and promptly suggests to you that "Camptown Races" is the cause of your irritation. You confirm the computer's suggestion by listening to one of the many MP3 files it has found. Satisfied, you kindly decline the offer to retrieve all extant versions of the song, including a recently released Italian rap rendition and an orchestral score featuring a bagpipe duet. Does such a system exist today? No. Will it in the future? Yes. Will such a system be easy to produce? Most decidedly not. Myriad difficulties remain to be overcome before the creation, deployment, and evaluation of robust, large-scale, and content-based Music Information Retrieval (MIR) systems become reality. The dizzyingly complex interaction of music's pitch, temporal, harmonic, timbral, editorial, textual, and bibliographic "facets," for example, demonstrates just one of MIR's perplexing problems. The choice of music representation-whether symbol-based, audio-based, or both-further compounds matters, as each choice determines bandwidth, computation, storage, retrieval, and interface requirements and capabilities.

0.007611368 = product of:
  0.03805684 = sum of:
    0.03805684 = weight(_text_:index in 2462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03805684 = score(doc=2462,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20483267 = fieldWeight in 2462, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2462)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A number of approaches have been developed in information retrieval to address the problems caused by the variability in word usage. Stemming is a popular technique used to normalize some kinds of surface-level variability by converting words to their morphological root. For example, the words "retrieve," "retrieval," "retrieved," and "retrieving" would all be converted to their root form, "retrieve." The root form is used for both document and query processing. Stemming sometimes helps retrieval, although not much (Harman, 1991; Hull, 1996). And, it does not address Gases where related words are not morphologically related (e.g., physician and doctor). Controlled vocabularies have also been used to limit variability by requiring that query and index terms belong to a pre-defined set of terms. Documents are indexed by a specified or authorized list of subject headings or index terms, called the controlled vocabulary. Library of Congress Subject Headings, Medical Subject Headings, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) keywords, and Yellow Pages headings are examples of controlled vocabularies. If searchers can find the right controlled vocabulary terms, they do not have to think of all the morphologically related or synonymous terms that authors might have used. However, assigning controlled vocabulary terms in a consistent and thorough manner is a time-consuming and usually manual process. A good deal of research has been published about the effectiveness of controlled vocabulary indexing compared to full text indexing (e.g., Bates, 1998; Lancaster, 1986; Svenonius, 1986). The combination of both full text and controlled vocabularies is often better than either alone, although the size of the advantage is variable (Lancaster, 1986; Markey, Atherton, & Newton, 1982; Srinivasan, 1996). Richer thesauri have also been used to provide synonyms, generalizations, and specializations of users' search terms (see Srinivasan, 1992, for a review). Controlled vocabularies and thesaurus entries can be generated either manually or by the automatic analysis of large collections of texts.

0.00745587 = product of:
  0.03727935 = sum of:
    0.03727935 = weight(_text_:system in 2900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03727935 = score(doc=2900,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 2900, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2900)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

An online series of articles explaining controlled vocabularies and, in particular, faceted classification. It is not yet finished, but what they have covered is very well done, practical and informative, with useful advice and a full treatment. It is worth reading now, and when they actually get to performing facet analysis and making a faceted system, it will make a very useful reference.

0.0068473495 = product of:
  0.034236748 = sum of:
    0.034236748 = weight(_text_:context in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034236748 = score(doc=5079,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.19428048 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The concept of information as we use it in everyday English, in the sense of knowledge communicated, plays a central role in contemporary society. The development and widespread use of computer networks since the end of World War II, and the emergence of information science as a discipline in the 1950s, are evidence of this focus. Although knowledge and its communication are basic phenomena of every human society, it is the rise of information technology and its global impacts that characterize ours as an information society. It is commonplace to consider information as a basic condition for economic development together with capital, labor, and raw material; but what makes information especially significant at present is its digital nature. The impact of information technology an the natural and social sciences in particular has made this everyday notion a highly controversial concept. Claude Shannon's (1948) "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" is a landmark work, referring to the common use of information with its semantic and pragmatic dimensions, while at the same time redefining the concept within an engineering framework. The fact that the concept of knowledge communication has been designated by the word information seems, prima facie, a linguistic happenstance. For a science like information science (IS), it is of course important how fundamental terms are defined; and in IS, as in other fields, the question of how to define information is often raised. This chapter is an attempt to review the status of the concept of information in IS, with reference also to interdisciplinary trends. In scientific discourse, theoretical concepts are not true or false elements or glimpses of some element of reality; rather, they are constructions designed to do a job in the best possible way. Different conceptions of fundamental terms like information are thus more or less fruitful, depending an the theories (and in the end, the practical actions) they are expected to support. In the opening section, we discuss the problem of defining terms from the perspective of the philosophy of science. The history of a word provides us with anecdotes that are tangential to the concept itself. But in our case, the use of the word information points to a specific perspective from which the concept of knowledge communication has been defined. This perspective includes such characteristics as novelty and relevante; i.e., it refers to the process of knowledge transformation, and particularly to selection and interpretation within a specific context. The discussion leads to the questions of why and when this meaning was designated with the word information. We will explore this history, and we believe that our results may help readers better understand the complexity of the concept with regard to its scientific definitions.
Discussions about the concept of information in other disciplines are very important for IS because many theories and approaches in IS have their origins elsewhere (see the section "Information as an Interdisciplinary Concept" in this chapter). The epistemological concept of information brings into play nonhuman information processes, particularly in physics and biology. And vice versa: the psychic and sociological processes of selection and interpretation may be considered using objective parameters, leaving aside the semantic dimension, or more precisely, by considering objective or situational parameters of interpretation. This concept can be illustrated also in physical terms with regard to release mechanisms, as we suggest. Our overview of the concept of information in the natural sciences as well as in the humanities and social sciences cannot hope to be comprehensive. In most cases, we can refer only to fragments of theories. However, the reader may wish to follow the leads provided in the bibliography. Readers interested primarily in information science may derive most benefit from the section an "Information in Information Science," in which we offer a detailed explanation of diverse views and theories of information within our field; supplementing the recent ARIST chapter by Cornelius (2002). We show that the introduction of the concept of information circa 1950 to the domain of special librarianship and documentation has in itself had serious consequences for the types of knowledge and theories developed in our field. The important question is not only what meaning we give the term in IS, but also how it relates to other basic terms, such as documents, texts, and knowledge. Starting with an objectivist view from the world of information theory and cybernetics, information science has turned to the phenomena of relevance and interpretation as basic aspects of the concept of information. This change is in no way a turn to a subjectivist theory, but an appraisal of different perspectives that may determine in a particular context what is being considered as informative, be it a "thing" (Buckland, 1991b) or a document. Different concepts of information within information science reflect tensions between a subjective and an objective approach. The concept of interpretation or selection may be considered to be the bridge between these two poles. It is important, however, to consider the different professions involved with the interpretation and selection of knowledge. The most important thing in IS (as in information policy) is to consider information as a constitutive forte in society and, thus, recognize the teleological nature of information systems and services (Braman, 1989).

0.0064557428 = product of:
  0.032278713 = sum of:
    0.032278713 = weight(_text_:context in 4283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032278713 = score(doc=4283,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.18316938 = fieldWeight in 4283, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4283)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Information retrieval - the retrieval, primarily, of documents or textual material - is fundamentally a linguistic process. At the very least we must describe what we want and match that description with descriptions of the information that is available to us. Furthermore, when we describe what we want, we must mean something by that description. This is a deceptively simple act, but such linguistic events have been the grist for philosophical analysis since Aristotle. Although there are complexities involved in referring to authors, document types, or other categories of information retrieval context, here I wish to focus an one of the most problematic activities in information retrieval: the description of the intellectual content of information items. And even though I take information retrieval to involve the description and retrieval of written text, what I say here is applicable to any information item whose intellectual content can be described for retrieval-books, documents, images, audio clips, video clips, scientific specimens, engineering schematics, and so forth. For convenience, though, I will refer only to the description and retrieval of documents. The description of intellectual content can go wrong in many obvious ways. We may describe what we want incorrectly; we may describe it correctly but in such general terms that its description is useless for retrieval; or we may describe what we want correctly, but misinterpret the descriptions of available information, and thereby match our description of what we want incorrectly. From a linguistic point of view, we can be misunderstood in the process of retrieval in many ways. Because the philosophy of language deals specifically with how we are understood and mis-understood, it should have some use for understanding the process of description in information retrieval. First, however, let us examine more closely the kinds of misunderstandings that can occur in information retrieval. We use language in searching for information in two principal ways. We use it to describe what we want and to discriminate what we want from other information that is available to us but that we do not want. Description and discrimination together articulate the goals of the information search process; they also delineate the two principal ways in which language can fail us in this process. Van Rijsbergen (1979) was the first to make this distinction, calling them "representation" and "discrimination.""

0.0062790583 = product of:
  0.03139529 = sum of:
    0.03139529 = weight(_text_:index in 4285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03139529 = score(doc=4285,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.16897833 = fieldWeight in 4285, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4285)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Techniques for automated indexing and information retrieval (IR) have been developed, tested, and refined over the past 40 years, and are well documented (see, for example, Agosti & Smeaton, 1996; BaezaYates & Ribeiro-Neto, 1999a; Frakes & Baeza-Yates, 1992; Korfhage, 1997; Salton, 1989; Witten, Moffat, & Bell, 1999). With the introduction of the Web, and the capability to index and retrieve via search engines, these techniques have been extended to a new environment. They have been adopted, altered, and in some Gases extended to include new methods. "In short, search engines are indispensable for searching the Web, they employ a variety of relatively advanced IR techniques, and there are some peculiar aspects of search engines that make searching the Web different than more conventional information retrieval" (Gordon & Pathak, 1999, p. 145). The environment for information retrieval an the World Wide Web differs from that of "conventional" information retrieval in a number of fundamental ways. The collection is very large and changes continuously, with pages being added, deleted, and altered. Wide variability between the size, structure, focus, quality, and usefulness of documents makes Web documents much more heterogeneous than a typical electronic document collection. The wide variety of document types includes images, video, audio, and scripts, as well as many different document languages. Duplication of documents and sites is common. Documents are interconnected through networks of hyperlinks. Because of the size and dynamic nature of the Web, preprocessing all documents requires considerable resources and is often not feasible, certainly not an the frequent basis required to ensure currency. Query length is usually much shorter than in other environments-only a few words-and user behavior differs from that in other environments. These differences make the Web a novel environment for information retrieval (Baeza-Yates & Ribeiro-Neto, 1999b; Bharat & Henzinger, 1998; Huang, 2000).

0.0062004575 = product of:
  0.031002287 = sum of:
    0.031002287 = product of:
      0.09300686 = sum of:
        0.09300686 = weight(_text_:29 in 4230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09300686 = score(doc=4230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.6218451 = fieldWeight in 4230, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4230)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

13. 7.2008 9:29:38

0.0062004575 = product of:
  0.031002287 = sum of:
    0.031002287 = product of:
      0.09300686 = sum of:
        0.09300686 = weight(_text_:29 in 4305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09300686 = score(doc=4305,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.6218451 = fieldWeight in 4305, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4305)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:29:59

0.0061446796 = product of:
  0.030723399 = sum of:
    0.030723399 = product of:
      0.092170194 = sum of:
        0.092170194 = weight(_text_:22 in 3281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.092170194 = score(doc=3281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3281, 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=3281)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:01:26

0.0061446796 = product of:
  0.030723399 = sum of:
    0.030723399 = product of:
      0.092170194 = sum of:
        0.092170194 = weight(_text_:22 in 3962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.092170194 = score(doc=3962,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3962, 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=3962)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

13. 7.2008 9:30:22

0.0061446796 = product of:
  0.030723399 = sum of:
    0.030723399 = product of:
      0.092170194 = sum of:
        0.092170194 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.092170194 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4368, 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=4368)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:22:28

0.0061446796 = product of:
  0.030723399 = sum of:
    0.030723399 = product of:
      0.092170194 = sum of:
        0.092170194 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.092170194 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, 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=6091)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.0057072113 = product of:
  0.028536057 = sum of:
    0.028536057 = weight(_text_:system in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028536057 = score(doc=2467,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.21309318 = fieldWeight in 2467, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2467)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This is a classified, annotated bibliography about how to design faceted classification systems and make them usable on the World Wide Web. It is the first of three works I will be doing. The second, based on the material here and elsewhere, will discuss how to actually make the faceted system and put it online. The third will be a report of how I did just that, what worked, what didn't, and what I learned. Almost every article or book listed here begins with an explanation of what a faceted classification system is, so I won't (but see Steckel in Background below if you don't already know). They all agree that faceted systems are very appropriate for the web. Even pre-web articles (such as Duncan's in Background, below) assert that hypertext and facets will go together well. Combined, it is possible to take a set of documents and classify them or apply subject headings to describe what they are about, then build a navigational structure so that any user, no matter how he or she approaches the material, no matter what his or her goals, can move and search in a way that makes sense to them, but still get to the same useful results as someone else following a different path to the same goal. There is no one way that everyone will always use when looking for information. The more flexible the organization of the information, the more accommodating it is. Facets are more flexible for hypertext browsing than any enumerative or hierarchical system.
Consider movie listings in newspapers. Most Canadian newspapers list movie showtimes in two large blocks, for the two major theatre chains. The listings are ordered by region (in large cities), then theatre, then movie, and finally by showtime. Anyone wondering where and when a particular movie is playing must scan the complete listings. Determining what movies are playing in the next half hour is very difficult. When movie listings went onto the web, most sites used a simple faceted organization, always with movie name and theatre, and perhaps with region or neighbourhood (thankfully, theatre chains were left out). They make it easy to pick a theatre and see what movies are playing there, or to pick a movie and see what theatres are showing it. To complete the system, the sites should allow users to browse by neighbourhood and showtime, and to order the results in any way they desired. Thus could people easily find answers to such questions as, "Where is the new James Bond movie playing?" "What's showing at the Roxy tonight?" "I'm going to be out in in Little Finland this afternoon with three hours to kill starting at 2 ... is anything interesting playing?" A hypertext, faceted classification system makes more useful information more easily available to the user. Reading the books and articles below in chronological order will show a certain progression: suggestions that faceting and hypertext might work well, confidence that facets would work well if only someone would make such a system, and finally the beginning of serious work on actually designing, building, and testing faceted web sites. There is a solid basis of how to make faceted classifications (see Vickery in Recommended), but their application online is just starting. Work on XFML (see Van Dijck's work in Recommended) the Exchangeable Faceted Metadata Language, will make this easier. If it follows previous patterns, parts of the Internet community will embrace the idea and make open source software available for others to reuse. It will be particularly beneficial if professionals in both information studies and computer science can work together to build working systems, standards, and code. Each can benefit from the other's expertise in what can be a very complicated and technical area. One particularly nice thing about this area of research is that people interested in combining facets and the web often have web sites where they post their writings.

0.0055919024 = product of:
  0.027959513 = sum of:
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 4288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=4288,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 4288, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4288)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The rationale for using information systems is to find information that helps us in our daily activities, be they tasks or interests. Systems are expected to support us in searching for and identifying useful information. Although the activities and tasks performed by humans generate information needs and searching, they have attracted little attention in studies of information searching. Such studies have concentrated an search tasks rather than the activities that trigger them. It is obvious that our understanding of information searching is only partial, if we are not able to connect aspects of searching to the related task. The expected contribution of information to the task is reflected in relevance assessments of the information items found, and in the search tactics and use of the system in general. Taking the task into account seems to be a necessary condition for understanding and explaining information searching, and, by extension, for effective systems design.