Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × language_ss:"e"
  1. Lee, Y.Y.; Yang, S.Q.: Folksonomies as subject access : a survey of tagging in library online catalogs and discovery layers (2012) 0.09 
    0.08745811 = product of:
  0.17491622 = sum of:
    0.17491622 = product of:
      0.34983245 = sum of:
        0.34983245 = weight(_text_:tagging in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.34983245 = score(doc=309,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.1741256 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper describes a survey on how system vendors and libraries handled tagging in OPACs and discovery layers. Tags are user added subject metadata, also called folksonomies. This survey also investigated user behavior when they face the possibility to tag. The findings indicate that legacy/classic systems have no tagging capability. About 47% of the discovery tools provide tagging function. About 49% of the libraries that have a system with tagging capability have turned the tagging function on in their OPACs and discovery tools. Only 40% of the libraries that turned tagging on actually utilized user added subject metadata as access point to collections. Academic library users are less active in tagging than public library users.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  2. Kleineberg, M.: Context analysis and context indexing : formal pragmatics in knowledge organization (2014) 0.07 
    0.066795975 = product of:
  0.13359195 = sum of:
    0.13359195 = product of:
      0.40077582 = sum of:
        0.40077582 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.40077582 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4278608 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja
  3. Xiaoyue M.; Cahier, J.-P.: Iconic categorization with knowledge-based "icon systems" can improve collaborative KM (2011) 0.02 
    0.024293922 = product of:
  0.048587844 = sum of:
    0.048587844 = product of:
      0.09717569 = sum of:
        0.09717569 = weight(_text_:tagging in 4837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09717569 = score(doc=4837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.326146 = fieldWeight in 4837, 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=4837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Icon system could represent an efficient solution for collective iconic categorization of knowledge by providing graphical interpretation. Their pictorial characters assist visualizing the structure of text to become more understandable beyond vocabulary obstacle. In this paper we are proposing a Knowledge Engineering (KM) based iconic representation approach. We assume that these systematic icons improve collective knowledge management. Meanwhile, text (constructed under our knowledge management model - Hypertopic) helps to reduce the diversity of graphical understanding belonging to different users. This "position paper" also prepares to demonstrate our hypothesis by an "iconic social tagging" experiment which is to be accomplished in 2011 with UTT students. We describe the "socio semantic web" information portal involved in this project, and a part of the icons already designed for this experiment in Sustainability field. We have reviewed existing theoretical works on icons from various origins, which can be used to lay the foundation of robust "icons systems".
  4. Frické, M.: Logical division (2016) 0.02 
    0.024293922 = product of:
  0.048587844 = sum of:
    0.048587844 = product of:
      0.09717569 = sum of:
        0.09717569 = weight(_text_:tagging in 3183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09717569 = score(doc=3183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.326146 = fieldWeight in 3183, 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=3183)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Division is obviously important to Knowledge Organization. Typically, an organizational infrastructure might acknowledge three types of connecting relationships: class hierarchies, where some classes are subclasses of others, partitive hierarchies, where some items are parts of others, and instantiation, where some items are members of some classes (see Z39.19 ANSI/NISO 2005 as an example). The first two of these involve division (the third, instantiation, does not involve division). Logical division would usually be a part of hierarchical classification systems, which, in turn, are central to shelving in libraries, to subject classification schemes, to controlled vocabularies, and to thesauri. Partitive hierarchies, and partitive division, are often essential to controlled vocabularies, thesauri, and subject tagging systems. Partitive hierarchies also relate to the bearers of information; for example, a journal would typically have its component articles as parts and, in turn, they might have sections as their parts, and, of course, components might be arrived at by partitive division (see Tillett 2009 as an illustration). Finally, verbal division, disambiguating homographs, is basic to controlled vocabularies. Thus Division is a broad and relevant topic. This article, though, is going to focus on Logical Division.
  5. Wei, W.; Ram, S.: Utilizing sozial bookmarking tag space for Web content discovery : a social network analysis approach (2010) 0.02 
    0.019435138 = product of:
  0.038870275 = sum of:
    0.038870275 = product of:
      0.07774055 = sum of:
        0.07774055 = weight(_text_:tagging in 1) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07774055 = score(doc=1,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.2609168 = fieldWeight in 1, 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=1)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Theme
    Social tagging
  6. Guidi, F.; Sacerdoti Coen, C.: ¬A survey on retrieval of mathematical knowledge (2015) 0.02 
    0.017093996 = product of:
  0.03418799 = sum of:
    0.03418799 = product of:
      0.06837598 = sum of:
        0.06837598 = weight(_text_:22 in 5865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06837598 = score(doc=5865,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5865, 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=5865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 2.2017 12:51:57
  7. Sojka, P.; Liska, M.: ¬The art of mathematics retrieval (2011) 0.02 
    0.016922193 = product of:
  0.033844385 = sum of:
    0.033844385 = product of:
      0.06768877 = sum of:
        0.06768877 = weight(_text_:22 in 3450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06768877 = score(doc=3450,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 3450, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3450)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vgl.: DocEng2011, September 19-22, 2011, Mountain View, California, USA Copyright 2011 ACM 978-1-4503-0863-2/11/09
    Date
    22. 2.2017 13:00:42
  8. Mitchell, J.S.; Zeng, M.L.; Zumer, M.: Modeling classification systems in multicultural and multilingual contexts (2012) 0.01 
    0.014504736 = product of:
  0.029009473 = sum of:
    0.029009473 = product of:
      0.058018945 = sum of:
        0.058018945 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058018945 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The paper discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and /or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the DDC (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.
  9. Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013) 0.01 
    0.013675196 = product of:
  0.027350392 = sum of:
    0.027350392 = product of:
      0.054700784 = sum of:
        0.054700784 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054700784 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    17.12.2013 11:02:22
  10. Hollink, L.; Assem, M. van: Estimating the relevance of search results in the Culture-Web : a study of semantic distance measures (2010) 0.01 
    0.010256397 = product of:
  0.020512793 = sum of:
    0.020512793 = product of:
      0.041025586 = sum of:
        0.041025586 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041025586 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4649, 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=4649)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:40:22
  11. Delsey, T.: ¬The Making of RDA (2016) 0.01 
    0.010256397 = product of:
  0.020512793 = sum of:
    0.020512793 = product of:
      0.041025586 = sum of:
        0.041025586 = weight(_text_:22 in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041025586 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    17. 5.2016 19:22:40
  12. Voß, J.: Classification of knowledge organization systems with Wikidata (2016) 0.01 
    0.010256397 = product of:
  0.020512793 = sum of:
    0.020512793 = product of:
      0.041025586 = sum of:
        0.041025586 = weight(_text_:22 in 3082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041025586 = score(doc=3082,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3082, 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=3082)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Pages
    S.15-22
  13. Zanibbi, R.; Yuan, B.: Keyword and image-based retrieval for mathematical expressions (2011) 0.01 
    0.010256397 = product of:
  0.020512793 = sum of:
    0.020512793 = product of:
      0.041025586 = sum of:
        0.041025586 = weight(_text_:22 in 3449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041025586 = score(doc=3449,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3449, 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=3449)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 2.2017 12:53:49
  14. Open MIND (2015) 0.01 
    0.008546998 = product of:
  0.017093996 = sum of:
    0.017093996 = product of:
      0.03418799 = sum of:
        0.03418799 = weight(_text_:22 in 1648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03418799 = score(doc=1648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1648, 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=1648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    27. 1.2015 11:48:22
  15. Dowding, H.; Gengenbach, M.; Graham, B.; Meister, S.; Moran, J.; Peltzman, S.; Seifert, J.; Waugh, D.: OSS4EVA: using open-source tools to fulfill digital preservation requirements (2016) 0.01 
    0.008546998 = product of:
  0.017093996 = sum of:
    0.017093996 = product of:
      0.03418799 = sum of:
        0.03418799 = weight(_text_:22 in 3200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03418799 = score(doc=3200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3200, 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=3200)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    28.10.2016 18:22:33
  16. Roy, W.; Gray, C.: Preparing existing metadata for repository batch import : a recipe for a fickle food (2018) 0.01 
    0.008546998 = product of:
  0.017093996 = sum of:
    0.017093996 = product of:
      0.03418799 = sum of:
        0.03418799 = weight(_text_:22 in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03418799 = score(doc=4550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4550, 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=4550)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    10.11.2018 16:27:22
  17. Monireh, E.; Sarker, M.K.; Bianchi, F.; Hitzler, P.; Doran, D.; Xie, N.: Reasoning over RDF knowledge bases using deep learning (2018) 0.01 
    0.008546998 = product of:
  0.017093996 = sum of:
    0.017093996 = product of:
      0.03418799 = sum of:
        0.03418799 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03418799 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4553, 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=4553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    16.11.2018 14:22:01
  18. Somers, J.: Torching the modern-day library of Alexandria : somewhere at Google there is a database containing 25 million books and nobody is allowed to read them. (2017) 0.01 
    0.006837598 = product of:
  0.013675196 = sum of:
    0.013675196 = product of:
      0.027350392 = sum of:
        0.027350392 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027350392 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    You were going to get one-click access to the full text of nearly every book that's ever been published. Books still in print you'd have to pay for, but everything else-a collection slated to grow larger than the holdings at the Library of Congress, Harvard, the University of Michigan, at any of the great national libraries of Europe-would have been available for free at terminals that were going to be placed in every local library that wanted one. At the terminal you were going to be able to search tens of millions of books and read every page of any book you found. You'd be able to highlight passages and make annotations and share them; for the first time, you'd be able to pinpoint an idea somewhere inside the vastness of the printed record, and send somebody straight to it with a link. Books would become as instantly available, searchable, copy-pasteable-as alive in the digital world-as web pages. It was to be the realization of a long-held dream. "The universal library has been talked about for millennia," Richard Ovenden, the head of Oxford's Bodleian Libraries, has said. "It was possible to think in the Renaissance that you might be able to amass the whole of published knowledge in a single room or a single institution." In the spring of 2011, it seemed we'd amassed it in a terminal small enough to fit on a desk. "This is a watershed event and can serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of education, research, and intellectual life," one eager observer wrote at the time. On March 22 of that year, however, the legal agreement that would have unlocked a century's worth of books and peppered the country with access terminals to a universal library was rejected under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. When the library at Alexandria burned it was said to be an "international catastrophe." When the most significant humanities project of our time was dismantled in court, the scholars, archivists, and librarians who'd had a hand in its undoing breathed a sigh of relief, for they believed, at the time, that they had narrowly averted disaster.

Authors

Types

  • a 15
  • s 1

Themes