Search (1216 results, page 1 of 61)

0.20931366 = product of:
  0.83725464 = sum of:
    0.83725464 = weight(_text_:java in 6858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.83725464 = score(doc=6858,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.42603695 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        1.965216 = fieldWeight in 6858, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6858)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Why use Java? Object oriented primer. Java applets. The Java language. Branching and looping. Graphics. Animation and multithreading. Handling exceptions. The Java.awt package. Handling events. Windows, dialogs and menus. Input and output streams. Modifiers and packages. Java and C++

LCSH

Java (Computer program language)

Object

Java

RSWK

Java <Programmiersprache>
World wide web / Seite / Gestaltung / Java <Programmiersprache> (2134) (4231)

Subject

Java (Computer program language)
Java <Programmiersprache>
World wide web / Seite / Gestaltung / Java <Programmiersprache> (2134) (4231)

0.18891242 = product of:
  0.37782484 = sum of:
    0.009856473 = weight(_text_:und in 4740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009856473 = score(doc=4740,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13407676 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        0.07351366 = fieldWeight in 4740, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4740)
    0.36796838 = weight(_text_:hjorland in 4740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.36796838 = score(doc=4740,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.5478422 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.06241 = idf(docFreq=13, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        0.6716685 = fieldWeight in 4740, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          9.06241 = idf(docFreq=13, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4740)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of librarianship and information science 32(2000) no.4, S.218-219 (K.G. Bakewell); JASIST 53(2002) no.1, S.57 (B. Hjoerland): "Overall, the book is a disappointment, and points to problems in library and information science (LIS) as a research field. Classification is often regarded as one of the core subdisciplines of the field and as one of the core qualifications of library and information professionals. Nevertheless, no classification researchers (not even S.R. Ranganathan or Jack Mills-and none of the authors in the book under review) are visible in bibliometric maps of LIS (e.g., White & McCain, 1998)! One of the problems in this book is that it fails to define classification and to distinguish between different kinds of classification. By only considering systems like Dewey, LC and facetted classifications, it fail to consider, for example, bibliometric approaches in LIS as kinds of classifications and thus to consider the basic strength and weakness of different methods of classification. In computer science the term "ontologies" is very popular, and can be considered a modern development in classification research. Vickery (1997) made a useful introduction to this research, but it is not considered in the present book. I have a feeling that most of the authors in this book (and other "classification researchers" as well) are more or less implicitly working from the presumption that classification is about printed documents, and certainly not full-text electronic retrieval. I am, of course, aware that some of the chapters in the book do explicitly consider the Internet and electronic retrieval. However, if the electronic environment is to be considered, one needs to compare the relative strength and weakness of all kinds of subject access points (cf., Hjorland & Kyllesbech Nielsen, 2001). One has to consider what utility-if any-classification codes can have in relation to all other kinds of access points. If what is considered "classification" is not considered in relation to the electronic challenge, it is in my opinion reduced to something of minor importance. In Chapter 3, Julian Warner actually does take a step toward considering inherent weaknesses in current approaches to Information Retrieval (IR), and this chapter is, in my view, the best one. I think he is right in making the point that the IR tradition has built on the assumption that the system should provide a set of records that satisfy a query. What an IR system, in his view, should do is enlarge the users' capacity for informed choice between the representation of objects in the given universe of discourse. "Such an enhanced capacity for informed choice broadly corresponds to exploratory capability. It should also be regarded as analogous to a sense of cognitive control over, or ability to discriminate between, representations of objects" (p. 36). His basic idea is not much unfolded in the present chapter, but I think his line of research looks promising.
Again, however, the capacity of different forms of classification of contributing to such discriminatory powers should be considered relative to other kinds of subject access (cf., Hjorland & Kyllesbech Nielsen, 2001). In recent years the methods of classification and more generally knowledge organization has been reconsidered. Hjorland & Albrechtsen (1999) claimed that the four basic methods are, respectively, empiristic, rationalistic, historicist, and pragmatic. If one uses, for example bibliometric methods, one applies an empiricist method. The best representatives of the rationalist method are the facetted classifications. An important example of historicist methods are given in Hjorland (2000), considering the classification of the social sciences. An unfolded comparison of all methods used in one domain is given in Hjorland (1998). In my view, the future of classification is connected to a combination of these four methods of classification and to the further clarification of strong and weak aspects of different methods and systems. - Unfortunately, these issues are not addressed in the book, as it fails to answer the fundamental questions about the future of classification in LIS."
Weitere Rez in: Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 25(2001) H.1, S.104-105 (A. Müller-Dreier)

0.17441693 = product of:
  0.34883386 = sum of:
    0.019712945 = weight(_text_:und in 74) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019712945 = score(doc=74,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13407676 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        0.14702731 = fieldWeight in 74, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=74)
    0.3291209 = weight(_text_:hjorland in 74) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3291209 = score(doc=74,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5478422 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.06241 = idf(docFreq=13, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        0.60075855 = fieldWeight in 74, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.06241 = idf(docFreq=13, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=74)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article contrasts Bates' understanding of information as an observer-independent phenomenon with an understanding of information as situational, put forward by, among others, Bateson, Yovits, Spang-Hanssen, Brier, Buckland, Goguen, and Hjorland. The conflict between objective and subjective ways of understanding information corresponds to the conflict between an understanding of information as a thing or a substance versus an understanding of it as a sign. It is a fundamental distinction that involves a whole theory of knowledge, and it has roots back to different metaphors applied in Shannon's information theory. It is argued that a subject-dependent/ situation specific understanding of information is best suited to fulfill the needs in information science and that it is urgent for us to base Information Science (IS; or Library and Information Science, LIS) on this alternative theoretical frame.

Content

Bezugnahme auf: Bates, M.J.: Fundamental forms of information. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(2006), no.8, S.1033-1045 und Bates, M.J.: Information and knowledge: an evolutionary framework for information science. In: Information research, 10(2005) no.4.

0.17201541 = product of:
  0.34403083 = sum of:
    0.011499219 = weight(_text_:und in 4536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011499219 = score(doc=4536,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13407676 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        0.085765935 = fieldWeight in 4536, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4536)
    0.3325316 = weight(_text_:hjorland in 4536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3325316 = score(doc=4536,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.5478422 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.06241 = idf(docFreq=13, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        0.60698426 = fieldWeight in 4536, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          9.06241 = idf(docFreq=13, maxDocs=44421)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4536)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

I am writing to correct some of the misconceptions that Hjoerland and Nicolaisen appear to have about my paper in the previous issue of Knowledge Organization. I would like to address aspects of two of these misapprehensions. The first is the faulty interpretation they have given to my use of the term "naïve classification," and the second is the kinds of classification systems that they appear to believe are discussed in my paper as examples of "naïve classifications." First, the term "naïve classification" is directly analogous to the widely-understood and widelyaccepted term "naïve indexing." It is not analogous to the terms to which Hjorland and Nicolaisen compare it (i.e., "naïve physics", "naïve biology"). The term as I have defined it is not pejorative. It does not imply that the scholars who have developed naïve classifications have not given profoundly serious thought to their own scholarly work. My paper distinguishes between classifications for new knowledge developed by scholars in the various disciplines for the purposes of advancing disciplinary knowledge ("naïve classifications") and classifications for previously existing knowledge developed by information professionals for the purposes of creating access points in information retrieval systems ("professional classifications"). This distinction rests primarily an the purpose of the kind of classification system in question and only secondarily an the knowledge base of the scholars who have created it. Hjoerland and Nicolaisen appear to have misunderstood this point, which is made clearly and adequately in the title, in the abstract and throughout the text of my paper.
Second, the paper posits that these different reasons for creating classification systems strongly influence the content and extent of the two kinds of classifications, but not necessarily their structures. By definition, naïve classifications for new knowledge have been developed for discrete areas of disciplinary inquiry in new areas of knowledge. These classifications do not attempt to classify the whole of that disciplinary area. That is, naïve classifications have a explicit purpose that is significantly different from the purpose of the major disciplinary classifications Hjoer-land and Nicolaisen provide as examples of classifications they think I discuss under the rubric of "naïve classifications" (e.g., classifications for the entire field of archaeology, biology, linguistics, music, psychology, etc.). My paper is not concerned with these important classifications for major disciplinary areas. Instead, it is concerned solely and specifically with scholarly classifications for small areas of new knowledge within these major disciplines (e.g., cloth of aresta, double harpsichords, child-rearing practices, anomalous phenomena, etc.). Thus, I have nowhere suggested or implied that the broad disciplinary classifications mentioned by Hjoerland and Nicolaisen are appropriately categorized as "naïve classifications." For example, I have not associated the Periodic System of the Elements with naïve classifications, as Hjoerland and Nicolaisen state that I have done. Indeed, broad classifications of this type fall well outside the definition of naïve classifications set out in my paper. In this case, too, 1 believe that Hjorland and Nicolaisen have misunderstood an important point in my paper. I agree with a number of points made in Hjorland and Nicolaisen's paper. In particular, I agree that researchers in the knowledge organization field should adhere to the highest standards of scholarly and scientific precision. For that reason, I am glad to have had the opportunity to respond to their paper.

Footnote

Bezugnahme auf: Hjoerland, B., J. Nicolaisen: Scientific and scholarly classifications are not "naïve": a comment to Beghtol (2003). In: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.55-61. - Vgl. die Erwiderung von Nicolaisen und Hjoerland in KO 31(2004) no.3, S.199-201.

0.16456045 = product of:
  0.6582418 = sum of:
    0.6582418 = weight(_text_:hjorland in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.6582418 = score(doc=211,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5478422 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.06241 = idf(docFreq=13, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        1.2015171 = fieldWeight in 211, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.06241 = idf(docFreq=13, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=211)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 27(2000) no.4, S.238-241 (B. Hjorland)

0.162515 = product of:
  0.65006 = sum of:
    0.65006 = weight(_text_:java in 5740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.65006 = score(doc=5740,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.42603695 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        1.52583 = fieldWeight in 5740, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5740)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Ovid Java interface is compared with the Ovid Web Gateway and Ovid Windows Client, focusing on functionality from the user's perspective. The Java version draws upon both earlier Web and Windows versions, thus combining the worlds of the Web and application programs. It is concluded that Ovid Java offers enhanced functionality and requires high-end hardware and browser software to run well. Additional enhancements are forthcoming, some dependent upon the further development of Sun Microsystems' Java programming language

Object

Java

0.14653039 = product of:
  0.29306078 = sum of:
    0.23221265 = weight(_text_:java in 2393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23221265 = score(doc=2393,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42603695 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        0.5450528 = fieldWeight in 2393, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2393)
    0.060848147 = weight(_text_:und in 2393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060848147 = score(doc=2393,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.13407676 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        0.4538307 = fieldWeight in 2393, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2393)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Komplexe Aufgaben und Probleme werden heute üblicherweise im Team bearbeitet und gelöst. Das gilt insbesondere für Softwareprojekte, denn die Entwicklung komplexer Softwaresysteme findet heutzutage meistens arbeitsteilig in - zunehmend räumlich verteilten - Teams statt. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird zum einen ein rollenbasiertes Konzept vorgestellt, das virtuellen Lernteams bei der Zusammenarbeit einen virtuellen Tutor zur Seite stellt, der dem Team im Rahmen von Rollendefiziten adaptierte Hilfestellung bietet und so die Lerneffektivität unterstützt. Zum anderen wird gezeigt, wie das Zusammenspiel zweier spezialisierter Systeme (VitaminL und K3) im Kontext des Blended Learning echte Mehrwerte in E-Learning-Szenarien bringen kann. Die in Benutzertests und einer Lehrveranstaltung ermittelten Evaluierungsergebnisse lassen auf die Tragfähigkeit des rollenbasierten, tutoriellen Konzepts schließen und decken gleichzeitig großes Weiterentwicklungpotenzial auf.

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 59(2008) H.1, S.37-40

0.14074211 = product of:
  0.56296843 = sum of:
    0.56296843 = weight(_text_:java in 2051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.56296843 = score(doc=2051,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.42603695 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        1.3214076 = fieldWeight in 2051, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2051)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Object

Java

0.13910475 = product of:
  0.2782095 = sum of:
    0.23221265 = weight(_text_:java in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23221265 = score(doc=3593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42603695 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        0.5450528 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
    0.045996875 = weight(_text_:und in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045996875 = score(doc=3593,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13407676 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        0.34306374 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Internet verändert die Software-Szene / Java macht Dampf / PC bekommt Konkurrenz / Aufgeweckte Riesen gegen innovative Zwerge / Intranet heißt der neue Renner

Content

Das Internet boomt. Rund um den Globus basteln etablierte EDV-Konzerne und Branchenneulinge an Hard- und Software für das Netz der Netze. Glaubt man den Auguren, läutet seine Beliebtheit eine Revolution in der Informationstechnik ein. Der Ära der Großrechner und der Personalcomputer soll ein Zeitalter folgen, in dem 'das Netz der Computer' ist. Wer dann die Fäden ziehen wird, ist längst nicht ausgemacht. Ob herkömmliche PC mit ihren Programmen die Spinne im Netz bleiben oder neue Geräte und Software sich breitmachen, darüber wird derzeit lebhaft diskutiert

0.13269295 = product of:
  0.5307718 = sum of:
    0.5307718 = weight(_text_:java in 6015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.5307718 = score(doc=6015,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42603695 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        1.2458351 = fieldWeight in 6015, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6015)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Object

JAVA

0.13269295 = product of:
  0.5307718 = sum of:
    0.5307718 = weight(_text_:java in 45) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.5307718 = score(doc=45,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.42603695 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        1.2458351 = fieldWeight in 45, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=45)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Ovid Technologies is launching its Java search client to enable users to access Ovid's scientific databases on the Web with full search capabilities irrespective of the type of computer used. Explains the differences between Java and HTML. The Java client increases search speed by several orders of magnitude. The Ovid client does not need to wait for individual pages to load and incorporates multi-tasking. The interface includes tree displays; thesauri; mapping; explode/implode; search fields and context sensitive help. Display; save; and e-mail are available from the client

0.12760554 = product of:
  0.25521109 = sum of:
    0.23221265 = weight(_text_:java in 1604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23221265 = score(doc=1604,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42603695 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        0.5450528 = fieldWeight in 1604, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1604)
    0.022998437 = weight(_text_:und in 1604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022998437 = score(doc=1604,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13407676 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        0.17153187 = fieldWeight in 1604, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1604)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

iQvoc is a new open source SKOS-XL vocabulary management tool developed by the Federal Environment Agency, Germany, and innoQ Deutschland GmbH. Its immediate purpose is maintaining and publishing reference vocabularies in the upcoming Linked Data cloud of environmental information, but it may be easily adapted to host any SKOS- XL compliant vocabulary. iQvoc is implemented as a Ruby on Rails application running on top of JRuby - the Java implementation of the Ruby Programming Language. To increase the user experience when editing content, iQvoc uses heavily the JavaScript library jQuery.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.116106324 = product of:
  0.4644253 = sum of:
    0.4644253 = weight(_text_:java in 5463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.4644253 = score(doc=5463,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.42603695 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        1.0901057 = fieldWeight in 5463, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5463)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A spell book for mastering the WWW. Step by step, readers are taught how to use the Internet efficiently, and, in particular, how to publish information on the Web. After completing this book, the reader will be able, for example, to create stunning Web home pages and even take the first steps in Java programming. There are many books on the net bound to either one product, e.g. Mosaic, or to one topic, HTML. Mesaric, on the other hand, covers all WWW-related topics and all products which are in popular use. The magic revealed includes common data formats (HTML, PDF, JPEG, GIF), an introduction to Java and Java Srcipt, emerging technologies such as Hyper-G, hypermedia authoring with Haemony and Amadeus, information about ATM, TeleScript, and much more

Object

JAVA

0.116106324 = product of:
  0.4644253 = sum of:
    0.4644253 = weight(_text_:java in 86) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.4644253 = score(doc=86,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42603695 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        1.0901057 = fieldWeight in 86, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=86)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.111266404 = product of:
  0.44506562 = sum of:
    0.44506562 = weight(_text_:java in 6217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.44506562 = score(doc=6217,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.42603695 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        1.0446644 = fieldWeight in 6217, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6217)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A detailed description of how to use Java applets and Common Gateway Interface (CGI)/Dynamic Link Library (DLL) programs for Web publication of textual databases. The advantages of Java applets include low cost, flexible and visually appealing search interfaces, and the ability to be embedded in HTML pages, eliminating the need for Internet service provider permissions for their use. Highlights the FindIt family of Java applets from DoubleOLogic as one of the best product lines in the category. CGI programs may be written in Perl, Java, or some other language, and like DLL programs, must be installed on the server side. Notes that small-scale CGI and DLL applications cost from $150 to $8,000. Highlights Insight from Enigma Inc. as an excellent program at the high end of the cost range

0.10412477 = product of:
  0.20824954 = sum of:
    0.016262352 = weight(_text_:und in 3110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016262352 = score(doc=3110,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13407676 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        0.121291354 = fieldWeight in 3110, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3110)
    0.19198719 = weight(_text_:hjorland in 3110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19198719 = score(doc=3110,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5478422 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.06241 = idf(docFreq=13, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        0.3504425 = fieldWeight in 3110, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.06241 = idf(docFreq=13, maxDocs=44421)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3110)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Introduction; 1. Fidelia Ibekwe-SanJuan and Thomas Dousa.- 2. Cybersemiotics: A new foundation for transdisciplinary theory of information, cognition, meaning, communication and consciousness; Soren Brier.- 3. Epistemology and the Study of Social Information within the Perspective of a Unified Theory of Information;Wolfgang Hofkirchner.- 4. Perception and Testimony as Data Providers; Luciano Floridi.- 5. Human communication from the semiotic perspective; Winfried Noth.- 6. Mind the gap: transitions between concepts of information in varied domains; Lyn Robinson and David Bawden.- 7. Information and the disciplines: A conceptual meta-analysis; Jonathan Furner.- 8. Epistemological Challenges for Information Science; Ian Cornelius.- 9. The nature of information science and its core concepts; Birger Hjorland.- 10. Visual information construing: bistability as a revealer of mediating patterns; Sylvie Leleu-Merviel. - 11. Understanding users' informational constructs via a triadic method approach: a case study; Michel Labour. - 12. Documentary languages and the demarcation of information units in textual information: the case of Julius O. Kaisers's Systematic Indexing

RSWK

Information / Kommunikation / Wissen / Informations- und Dokumentationswissenschaft / Kongress / Lyon <2011>

Subject

Information / Kommunikation / Wissen / Informations- und Dokumentationswissenschaft / Kongress / Lyon <2011>

0.10055103 = product of:
  0.40220413 = sum of:
    0.40220413 = weight(_text_:java in 6014) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.40220413 = score(doc=6014,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.42603695 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        0.94405925 = fieldWeight in 6014, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6014)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Most books on the Internet describe it from the user's end. This one, however, is unique in its focus on serving information on the WWW. It presents everything from the basics to advanced techniques and will thus prove invaluable to site administrators and developers. The author - an expert developer and researcher at UCSD - covers such topics as HTML 3.0, serving documents, interfaces, WWW utilities and browsers such as Netscape. Fisher also includes an introduction to programming with JAVA and JAVA sript, as well as the complete VRML 1.0 specification

Object

JAVA

0.10055103 = product of:
  0.40220413 = sum of:
    0.40220413 = weight(_text_:java in 4612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.40220413 = score(doc=4612,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.42603695 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        0.94405925 = fieldWeight in 4612, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4612)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses drawbacks of the Java programming language, and proposes some potential improvements for concurrent object-oriented software development. Java's passive object model does not provide an effective means for building distributed applications, critical for the future of Web-based next-generation information systems. Suggests improvements to Java's existing mechanisms for maintaining consistency across multiple threads, sending asynchronous messages and controlling resources. Drives the discussion with examples and suggestions from work on the Actor model of computation

Object

Java

0.10055103 = product of:
  0.40220413 = sum of:
    0.40220413 = weight(_text_:java in 6896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.40220413 = score(doc=6896,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.42603695 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        0.94405925 = fieldWeight in 6896, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6896)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper proposes the use of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) as a language for modelling ontologies for Web resources and the knowledge contained within them. To provide a mechanism for serialising and processing object diagrams representing knowledge, a pair of XSI-T stylesheets have been developed to map from XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) encodings of class diagrams to corresponding RDF schemas and to Java classes representing the concepts in the ontologies. The Java code includes methods for marshalling and unmarshalling object-oriented information between in-memory data structures and RDF serialisations of that information. This provides a convenient mechanism for Java applications to share knowledge on the Web

0.09951971 = product of:
  0.39807883 = sum of:
    0.39807883 = weight(_text_:java in 2035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.39807883 = score(doc=2035,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42603695 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06045215 = queryNorm
        0.9343763 = fieldWeight in 2035, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2035)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)