Search (87 results, page 1 of 5)

0.13610941 = product of:
  0.27221882 = sum of:
    0.27221882 = sum of:
      0.23803084 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.23803084 = score(doc=2650,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.79889125 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
      0.03418799 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03418799 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2650, 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=2650)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There is a growing interest into how we represent and share tagging data in collaborative tagging systems. Conventional tags, meaning freely created tags that are not associated with a structured ontology, are not naturally suited for collaborative processes, due to linguistic and grammatical variations, as well as human typing errors. Additionally, tags reflect personal views of the world by individual users, and are not normalised for synonymy, morphology or any other mapping. Our view is that the conventional approach provides very limited semantic value for collaboration. Moreover, in cases where there is some semantic value, automatically sharing semantics via computer manipulations is extremely problematic. This paper explores these problems by discussing approaches for collaborative tagging activities at a semantic level, and presenting conceptual models for collaborative tagging activities and folksonomies. We present criteria for the comparison of existing tag ontologies and discuss their strengths and weaknesses in relation to these criteria.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

Theme

Social tagging

0.10833117 = product of:
  0.21666235 = sum of:
    0.21666235 = sum of:
      0.16831324 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16831324 = score(doc=2652,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.5649015 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
      0.048349116 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048349116 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Folksonomy is the result of describing Web resources with tags created by Web users. Although it has become a popular application for the description of resources, in general terms Folksonomies are not being conveniently integrated in metadata. However, if the appropriate metadata elements are identified, then further work may be conducted to automatically assign tags to these elements (RDF properties) and use them in Semantic Web applications. This article presents research carried out to continue the project Kinds of Tags, which intends to identify elements required for metadata originating from folksonomies and to propose an application profile for DC Social Tagging. The work provides information that may be used by software applications to assign tags to metadata elements and, therefore, means for tags to be conveniently gathered by metadata interoperability tools. Despite the unquestionably high value of DC and the significance of the already existing properties in DC Terms, the pilot study show revealed a significant number of tags for which no corresponding properties yet existed. A need for new properties, such as Action, Depth, Rate, and Utility was determined. Those potential new properties will have to be validated in a later stage by the DC Social Tagging Community.

Pages

S.14-22

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

Theme

Social tagging

0.0788182 = product of:
  0.1576364 = sum of:
    0.1576364 = sum of:
      0.11661082 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11661082 = score(doc=2595,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.39137518 = fieldWeight in 2595, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2595)
      0.041025586 = weight(_text_:22 in 2595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041025586 = score(doc=2595,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2595, 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=2595)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Academic libraries have moved toward providing social networking features, such as tagging, in their library catalogs. To explore whether user tags can enhance access to individual literary works, the author obtained a sample of individual works of English and American literature from the twentieth and twenty-first centuries from a large academic library catalog and searched them in LibraryThing. The author compared match rates, the availability of subject headings and tags across various literary forms, and the terminology used in tags versus controlled-vocabulary headings on a subset of records. In addition, she evaluated the usefulness of available LibraryThing tags for the library catalog records that lacked subject headings. Options for utilizing the subject terms available in sources outside the local catalog also are discussed.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.06568184 = product of:
  0.13136367 = sum of:
    0.13136367 = sum of:
      0.09717569 = weight(_text_:tagging in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09717569 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.326146 = fieldWeight in 3524, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3524)
      0.03418799 = weight(_text_:22 in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03418799 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3524, 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=3524)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Tags (keywords freely assigned by users to describe web content) have become highly popular on Web 2.0 applications, because of the strong stimuli and easiness for users to create and describe their own content. This increase in tag popularity has led to a vast literature on tag recommendation methods. These methods aim at assisting users in the tagging process, possibly increasing the quality of the generated tags and, consequently, improving the quality of the information retrieval (IR) services that rely on tags as data sources. Regardless of the numerous and diversified previous studies on tag recommendation, to our knowledge, no previous work has summarized and organized them into a single survey article. In this article, we propose a taxonomy for tag recommendation methods, classifying them according to the target of the recommendations, their objectives, exploited data sources, and underlying techniques. Moreover, we provide a critical overview of these methods, pointing out their advantages and disadvantages. Finally, we describe the main open challenges related to the field, such as tag ambiguity, cold start, and evaluation issues.

Date

16.11.2017 13:30:22

0.048587844 = product of:
  0.09717569 = sum of:
    0.09717569 = product of:
      0.19435138 = sum of:
        0.19435138 = weight(_text_:tagging in 745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19435138 = score(doc=745,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.652292 = fieldWeight in 745, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=745)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With the increasing popularity of social tagging systems, the potential for using social tags as a source of metadata is being explored. Social tagging systems can simplify the involvement of a large number of users and improve the metadata-generation process. Current research is exploring social tagging systems as a mechanism to allow nonprofessional catalogers to participate in metadata generation. Because social tags are not from controlled vocabularies, there are issues that have to be addressed in finding quality terms to represent the content of a resource. This research explores ways to obtain a set of tags representing the resource from the tags provided by users. Two metrics are introduced. Annotation Dominance (AD) is a measure of the extent to which a tag term is agreed to by users. Cross Resources Annotation Discrimination (CRAD) is a measure of a tag's potential to classify a collection. It is designed to remove tags that are used too broadly or narrowly. Using the proposed measurements, the research selects important tags (meta-terms) and removes meaningless ones (tag noise) from the tags provided by users. To evaluate the proposed approach to find classificatory metadata candidates, we rely on expert users' relevance judgments comparing suggested tag terms and expert metadata terms. The results suggest that processing of user tags using the two measurements successfully identifies the terms that represent the topic categories of web resource content. The suggested tag terms can be further examined in various usages as semantic metadata for the resources.

Theme

Social tagging

0.048099514 = product of:
  0.09619903 = sum of:
    0.09619903 = product of:
      0.19239806 = sum of:
        0.19239806 = weight(_text_:tagging in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19239806 = score(doc=4866,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.64573616 = fieldWeight in 4866, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4866)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In diesem Kapitel wird die zentrale Bedeutung der Annotation von Webdokumenten bzw. von Ressourcen in einem Semantischen Web diskutiert. Es wird auf aktuelle Methoden und Techniken in diesem Gebiet eingegangen, insbesondere wird das Phänomen "Social Tagging" als zentrales Element eines "Social Semantic Webs" beleuchtet. Weiters wird der Frage nachgegangen, welchen Mehrwert "Tag Recommender" beim Annotationsvorgang bieten, sowohl aus Sicht des End-Users aber auch im Sinne eines kollaborativen Ontologieerstellungsprozesses. Schließlich wird ein Funktionsprinzip für einen semi-automatischen Tag-Recommender vorgestellt unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Anwendbarkeit in einem Corporate Semantic Web.

Theme

Social tagging

0.03401149 = product of:
  0.06802298 = sum of:
    0.06802298 = product of:
      0.13604596 = sum of:
        0.13604596 = weight(_text_:tagging in 892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13604596 = score(doc=892,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.4566044 = fieldWeight in 892, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=892)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.03401149 = product of:
  0.06802298 = sum of:
    0.06802298 = product of:
      0.13604596 = sum of:
        0.13604596 = weight(_text_:tagging in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13604596 = score(doc=1250,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.4566044 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Metadata has taken an a new took with the advent of XML and digital resources. XML provides a new versatile structure for tagging and packaging metadata as the rapid proliferation of digital resources demands both rapidly produced descriptive data and the encoding of more types of metadata. Two emerging standards are attempting to harness these developments for library needs. The first is the Metadata Object and Description Schema (MODS), a MARC-compatible XML schema for encoding descriptive data. The second standard is the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS), a highly flexible XML schema for packaging the descriptive metadata and various other important types of metadata needed to assure the use and preservation of digital resources.

0.03401149 = product of:
  0.06802298 = sum of:
    0.06802298 = product of:
      0.13604596 = sum of:
        0.13604596 = weight(_text_:tagging in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13604596 = score(doc=1968,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.4566044 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Theme

Social tagging

0.029152704 = product of:
  0.05830541 = sum of:
    0.05830541 = product of:
      0.11661082 = sum of:
        0.11661082 = weight(_text_:tagging in 3598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11661082 = score(doc=3598,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.39137518 = fieldWeight in 3598, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3598)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.029152704 = product of:
  0.05830541 = sum of:
    0.05830541 = product of:
      0.11661082 = sum of:
        0.11661082 = weight(_text_:tagging in 5526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11661082 = score(doc=5526,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.39137518 = fieldWeight in 5526, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5526)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With the proliferation of digitized resources accessible internationally via Internet and Intranet knowledge bases and a pressing need to develop more sophisticated tools for the identification and retrieval of electronic resources, both general purpose and domain-specific metadata schemes have assumed a particular prominence. This has resulted in a growing number of online repositories that must be accessed using terminology that would be considered unfamiliar to most searchers. Assuming that a natural language "gateway" requiring no prior knowledge of specific metadata tagging could facilitate cross-repository searching, end-users were engaged in focus group testing of a "namespace" of common categories derived from nine metadata schemes. Findings and their implications within an international context are presented.

0.029152704 = product of:
  0.05830541 = sum of:
    0.05830541 = product of:
      0.11661082 = sum of:
        0.11661082 = weight(_text_:tagging in 5574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11661082 = score(doc=5574,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.39137518 = fieldWeight in 5574, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5574)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Twitter hashtag is a unique tagging format linking Tweets to user-defined concepts. The aim of the paper is to describe various applications of Twitter hashtags and to determine the functional characteristics of each application. Twitter hashtags can assist in archiving twitter content, provide different visual representations of tweets, and permit grouping by categories and facets. This study seeks to examine the trends in Twitter hashtag features and how these may be applied as enhancements for next-generation library catalogues. For this purpose, Taylor's value-added model is used as an analytical framework. The morphological box developed by Zwicky is used to synthesize functionalities of Twitter hashtag applications. And finally, included are recommendations for the design of hashtag-based value-added dimensions for future library catalogues.

0.029009473 = product of:
  0.058018945 = sum of:
    0.058018945 = product of:
      0.11603789 = sum of:
        0.11603789 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11603789 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 3.2002 19:45:22

Source

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

0.027350392 = product of:
  0.054700784 = sum of:
    0.054700784 = product of:
      0.10940157 = sum of:
        0.10940157 = weight(_text_:22 in 4899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10940157 = score(doc=4899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4899, 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=4899)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

16. 7.2000 20:58:22

0.023931593 = product of:
  0.047863185 = sum of:
    0.047863185 = product of:
      0.09572637 = sum of:
        0.09572637 = weight(_text_:22 in 4407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09572637 = score(doc=4407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4407, 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=4407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

28. 3.2002 9:22:34

0.019435138 = product of:
  0.038870275 = sum of:
    0.038870275 = product of:
      0.07774055 = sum of:
        0.07774055 = weight(_text_:tagging in 5046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07774055 = score(doc=5046,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.2609168 = fieldWeight in 5046, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5046)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Human interpretation of images during image annotation is complicated, but most existing interactive image annotation systems are generally operated based on social tagging, while ignoring that tags are insufficient to convey image semantics. Hence, it is critical to study the nature of image annotation behaviors and process. This study investigated annotation tactics, transitions, strategies and their efficiency during the image annotation process. A total of 90 participants were recruited to annotate nine pictures in three emotional dimensions with three interactive annotation methods. Data collected from annotation logs and verbal protocols were analyzed by applying both qualitative and quantitative methods. The findings of this study show that the cognitive process of human interpretation of images is rather complex, which reveals a probable bias in research involving image relevance feedback. Participants preferred applying scroll bar (Scr) and image comparison (Cim) tactics comparing with rating tactic (Val), and they did fewer fine tuning activities, which reflects the influence of perceptual level and users' cognitive load during image annotation. Annotation tactic transition analysis showed that Cim was more likely to be adopted at the beginning of each phase, and the most remarkable transition was from Cim to Scr. By applying sequence analysis, the authors found 10 most commonly used sequences representing four types of annotation strategies, including Single tactic strategy, Tactic combination strategy, Fix mode strategy and Shift mode strategy. Furthermore, two patterns, "quarter decreasing" and "transition cost," were identified based on time data, and both multiple tactics (e.g., the combination of Cim and Scr) and fine tuning activities were recognized as efficient tactic applications. Annotation patterns found in this study suggest more research needs to be done considering the need for multi-interactive methods and their influence. The findings of this study generated detailed and useful guidance for the interactive design in image annotation systems, including recommending efficient tactic applications in different phases, highlighting the most frequently applied tactics and transitions, and avoiding unnecessary transitions.

0.019339647 = product of:
  0.038679294 = sum of:
    0.038679294 = product of:
      0.07735859 = sum of:
        0.07735859 = weight(_text_:22 in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07735859 = score(doc=2408,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2408, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2408)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 1.2007 18:31:22

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.43-58

0.019339647 = product of:
  0.038679294 = sum of:
    0.038679294 = product of:
      0.07735859 = sum of:
        0.07735859 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07735859 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9.12.2005 19:22:38

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.175-181

0.017093996 = product of:
  0.03418799 = sum of:
    0.03418799 = product of:
      0.06837598 = sum of:
        0.06837598 = weight(_text_:22 in 1032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06837598 = score(doc=1032,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1032, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1032)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1998 18:45:36

0.017093996 = product of:
  0.03418799 = sum of:
    0.03418799 = product of:
      0.06837598 = sum of:
        0.06837598 = weight(_text_:22 in 2275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06837598 = score(doc=2275,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2275, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2275)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Bericht über den Workshop, der am 22. u. 23.6.98 in der SUB Göttingen stattfand