Search (4850 results, page 1 of 243)

0.06462684 = product of:
  0.12925369 = sum of:
    0.011453646 = weight(_text_:und in 1127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011453646 = score(doc=1127,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1335454 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.085765935 = fieldWeight in 1127, 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=1127)
    0.11780004 = weight(_text_:having in 1127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11780004 = score(doc=1127,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.36014074 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.32709447 = fieldWeight in 1127, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1127)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Chapter 5 empirically tackles the first of the two research questions formulated above, namely the question of global collection statistics. More precisely, it studies possibilities of radically simplified results merging. The simplification comes from the attempt - without having knowledge of the complete collection - to equip all peers with the same global statistics, making document scores comparable across peers. Chapter 5 empirically tackles the first of the two research questions formulated above, namely the question of global collection statistics. More precisely, it studies possibilities of radically simplified results merging. The simplification comes from the attempt - without having knowledge of the complete collection - to equip all peers with the same global statistics, making document scores comparable across peers. What is examined, is the question of how we can obtain such global statistics and to what extent their use will lead to a drop in retrieval effectiveness. In chapter 6, the second research question is tackled, namely that of making forwarding decisions for queries, based on profiles of other peers. After a review of related work in that area, the chapter first defines the approaches that will be compared against each other. Then, a novel evaluation framework is introduced, including a new measure for comparing results of a distributed search engine against those of a centralised one. Finally, the actual evaluation is performed using the new framework.

Imprint

Leipzig : Universität / Fakultät für Mathematik und Informatik Institut für Informatik

0.055294715 = product of:
  0.11058943 = sum of:
    0.051091425 = weight(_text_:und in 1665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051091425 = score(doc=1665,freq=78.0), product of:
        0.1335454 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.3825772 = fieldWeight in 1665, product of:
          8.83176 = tf(freq=78.0), with freq of:
            78.0 = termFreq=78.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1665)
    0.05949801 = weight(_text_:having in 1665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05949801 = score(doc=1665,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36014074 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.16520765 = fieldWeight in 1665, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1665)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

1. Im täglichen Leben oder im Beruf steht man oftmals vor der Aufgabe, nach Wissen zu suchen, das man in einem Buch gefunden hat oder das man darin vermutet. Dann ist es für den Suchenden lästig oder sogar unzumutbar, wenn er bei dieser Suche auf planloses Blättern angewiesen ist, bis er fündig geworden ist oder bis er schließlich zu dem Schluss gelangt, dass das Gesuchte im Buch wohl nicht enthalten ist, dies vielleicht nur irrtümlich, weil er wegen Zeitmangels vorzeitig aufgeben musste. 2. Jedes Buch, in welchem wiederverwertbares Wissen niedergelegt ist und welches nicht ausschließlich der Unterhaltung dient, sollte deswegen ein Register haben. Inhaltsverzeichnisse allein können wegen ihres allzu allgemeinen Charakters keinen ausreichend gut gezielten Zugang zum Wissen des Buches vermitteln. Als Suchender würde man allzu viel Zeit brauchen, um das momentan Interessierende darin aufzufinden. 3. Buchregister werden schon seit Jahrhunderten in unterschiedlichen Varianten angefertigt, in Abhängigkeit von der Eigenart der betreffenden Bücher, von der Verfügbarkeit von Platz und Zeit, und damit auch in Abhängigkeit von dem für das Register verfügbare Geld, abhängig aber auch von Erfahrung und Sachkundigkeit der Indexer und von den verfügbaren technischen Hilfsmitteln. 4. Ein gutes Register macht das im Buch enthaltene Wissen leicht und lückenlos wiederauffindbar und wiederverwertbar. So erlangt ein Buch erst dann seinen vollen Wert, wenn es für das gezielte (Wieder-) Auffinden von darin enthaltenem Wissen in der Weise inhaltlich erschlossen ist, dass man einen gesicherten Zugriff auf das Gesuchte hat. Dies gilt besonders für Lehr- und Anleitungsbücher. Dies ist eine Erfahrung, die schon fast so alt ist wie der Buchdruck selbst (Wellisch 1986, 1994A). 5. Mehr Bücher als jemals zuvor werden heutzutage produziert, aller Konkurrenz durch die elektronischen Medien zum Trotz. An der Notwendigkeit, das Wissen in diesen Büchern zu nutzen, hat sich nichts geändert und auch nichts an der Notwendigkeit, den Inhalt dieser Bücher leicht wiederauffindbar zu machen. Man möchte möglichst vollständig zu denjenigen Stellen im Buch hingeleitet werden, wo der Gegenstand des momentanen Interesses abgehandelt ist, und man möchte hierbei möglichst wenigem Ballast an Hinweisen auf thematisch nichteinschlägige Passagen ausgesetzt sein, denn dem Menschen steht immer nur ein sehr beschränktes Maß an Zeit und Aufmerksamkeit zum Suchen zur Verfügung. Dies sind kostbare Ressourcen, mit denen sorgsam umgegangen werden muss. Es gilt das 4. Gesetz der Bibliothekswissenschaft (Ranganathan 1967): "Save the time of the reader".
6. In diesem Buch wird in den Kapiteln 2 bis 5 ein Grundkursus zur Theorie der Inhaltserschließung angeboten, wobei die Möglichkeiten und Grenzen von natursprachiger und indexsprachiger Ausdrucksweise geklärt werden, sowie auch der Unterschied zwischen Ausdruck und Begriff, zwischen den Recherchetypen von Erinnerung und Entdeckung, zwischen den Indexierungstypen von Zuteilung und Extraktion und auch der Unterschied zwischen Register und Konkordanz. Auf einer solchen Grundlage kann der Indexer besser den Nutzen der einzelnen Indexierungswerkzeuge abschätzen, sowie auch die nachteiligen Folgen, welche durch den Verzicht auf das eine oder das andere dieser Werkzeuge zwangsläufig eintreten. In der Literatur ist zwar der Standpunkt anzutreffen, dass "allzu viel Theorie" zu vermeiden sei, weil sie doch so "grau" sei. Aber wir schließen uns lieber dem Standpunkt des Physikers Ludwig Boltzmann an: "Nichts ist praktischer als Theorie", wenn eine solche Theorie das Beobachtbare erklären und das Zukünftige voraussagen kann. 7. Im Kapitel 7 werden die Bestandteile des Schlagwort-Registers in Gestalt von Schlagwort und Fundstelle, Untereintrag und Verweisung abgehandelt und das Zusammenfügen dieser Komponenten zum Register der herkömmlichen indikativen Art. Dieser Registertyp ist gekennzeichnet durch seine Beschränkungen bezüglich der Inanspruchnahme von Platz für den Druck und durch seine Beschränkungen bezüglich des Aufwandes an Zeit und Geld zu seiner Erstellung. Es werden die hiermit zwangläufig verbundenen Mängel dargelegt. 8. Im Kapitel 8 wird die Überwindung dieser Mängel durch die Einführung von reichlichen und ausführlichen Untereinträgen gezeigt. Das Register nimmt hierdurch einen ausgesprochen informativen Charakter an. Zugleich werden auf diesem Weg auch Wesen und Nutzen eines systematischen Registers dargelegt, welches zusätzlich zum herkömmlichen alphabetischen Register vorgelegt wird. 9. Die Möglichkeit zu alledem eröffnet sich dadurch, dass eine hochentwickelte Software eingesetzt wird und dass ein außergewöhnlicher Arbeitsaufwand aufseiten des Indexers nicht gescheut wird, verbunden mit entsprechend hohen Kosten. Dieser Aufwand ist erforderlich für die Formulierung von zahlreichen und ausführlichen Untereinträgen, zum Aufbau eines systematischen, thesaurusgestützten Schlagwort-Vokabulars und für eine besonders sorgfältige Indexierung. 10. Dieses Modell eines kompletten informativen Registers ist als eine Art Werkzeugkasten zu verstehen, aus welchem man diejenigen gedanklichen und technischen Werkzeuge auswählen und miteinander kombinieren kann, welche der jeweils herrschenden Bedarfslage am besten angemessen sind. Man wird von diesen Werkzeugen besonders dann ausgiebig Gebrauch machen, wenn hohe Anforderungen an die Treffsicherheit und Leichtigkeit der Recherche gestellt werden, Anforderungen, welche mit einem Register der herkömmlichen indikativen Art nicht erfüllbar sind. Der hohe Aufwand für ein gutes Register ist natürlich nur dann gerechtfertigt, wenn aufseiten der Leser auch wirklich Bedarf zum Nachschlagen besteht. Man wird kein Register für ein Buch anlegen, welches nur zur Unterhaltung und Erbauung gelesen und dann für alle Zeiten beiseite gelegt wird.

Footnote

Rez. in: Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis 58(2007) H.3, S.186 (J. Bertram): "Bei aller Kritik: Das Buch gemahnt eindrücklich daran, dass ein gutes Register sowohl den Anforderungen einer Entdeckungsrecherche als auch denen einer Erinnerungsrecherche dienlich sein sollte, um es mit Fugmanns Worten auszudrücken. Heißt: Es soll nicht nur denen zugute kommen, die das Buch gelesen haben, sondern eben gerade auch denjenigen, die es nicht gelesen haben. Nicht nur erinnerte Wortlaute sollen mit ihm wieder auffindbar sein, vielmehr soll das Register auch schnelle Antworten auf die Frage ermöglichen, ob ein Buch zum interessierenden Thema Ergiebiges enthält. Und dass für das zweite Anliegen ein Aufwand zu betreiben ist, der über ein reines Stichwortregister hinausgeht, wird von Fugmann anschaulich und überzeugend dargestellt. Auch seinem Wunsch, dass bei der Rezension vor Büchern Vorhandensein und Qualität des Registers (stärkere) Berücksichtigung finden mögen, ist uneingeschränkt zuzustimmen. Dass das vor ihm produzierte Register des Guten zu viel tut, steht auf einem anderen Blatt."
Weitere Rez. in: Knowledge organization 34(2007) no.1, S.60-61 (I. Dahlberg): "... In conclusion, I would like to congratulate Robert Fugmann for having written this book in such a short time and - may I disclose it too? - just before his 80th birthday. And I know it is his desire to show that by improving the science of book indexing in the way demonstrated in this book, the readers will be offered an instrument for making book indexing and index reading a joy for the index readers and an adventure in an enticing world thus entered into via an intelligent presentation of knowledge!"

0.054143343 = product of:
  0.108286686 = sum of:
    0.013089881 = weight(_text_:und in 3106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013089881 = score(doc=3106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1335454 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.098018214 = fieldWeight in 3106, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3106)
    0.095196806 = weight(_text_:having in 3106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.095196806 = score(doc=3106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36014074 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.26433223 = fieldWeight in 3106, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3106)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Zur Erreichung einer für den Besucher optimal ausgerichteten Website sind wesentliche Aufgaben bereits in der Vorbereitungsphase zu erarbeiten, unter anderem Zielgruppenermittlung, Bedürfnisfeststellung sowie Strukturierung des Angebots. Eine gute oder auch weniger gelungene Umsetzung dieser Kriterien kann an Beispielen aus der Praxis am Besten veranschaulicht werden. Um eine ungefähre Vergleichbarkeit der Angebote zu erhalten, sind im Folgenden nur die Seiten von Öffentlichen Bibliotheken gleicher Größenklasse nach Bix verwendet worden, und zwar der Klasse 4 (15 000 bis 30 000 Einwohner). Hier ist die Notwendigkeit einer allgemeinen Verbesserung des virtuellen Angebots am meisten gegeben.

Content

Mit einer Übersicht zu Usability-Kriterien: Ten Usability Heuristics I. Visibility ofsystem status The system should always keep users informed about what is going on, through appropriate feedback within reasonable time. II. Match between system and the real world The system should speak the users' language, with words, phrases and concepts familiar to the user, rather than system-oriented terms. Follow real-world conventions, making information appear in a natural and logical order. III. User control and freedom Users often choose system functions by mistake and will need a clearly marked »emergency extra to leave the unwanted state without having to go through an extended dialogue. Support undo and redo. IV. Consistency and standards Users should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing. Follow platform conventions. V. Error prevention Even better than good error messages is a careful design which prevents a problem from occurring in the first place. VI. Recognition rather than recall Make objects, actions, and options visible. The user should not have to remember information from one Part of the dialogue to another. Instructions for use of the system should be visible or easily retrievable whenever appropriate. VII. Flexibility and efficiency of use Accelerators - unseen by the novice user- may often speed up the interaction for the expert user such that the system can cater to both inexperienced and experienced users. Allow users to tailor frequent actions. VIII. Aesthetic and minimalist design Dialogues should not contain information which is irrelevant or rarely needed. Every extra unit of information in a dialogue competes with the relevant units of information and diminishes their relative visibility. IX. Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors Error messages should be expressed in plain language (no codes), precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution. X. Help and documentation Even though it is better if the system can be used without documentation, it may be necessary to provide help and documentation. Any such information should be easy to search, focused an the user's task, list concrete steps to be carried out, and not be too large.

0.05156775 = product of:
  0.1031355 = sum of:
    0.0198383 = weight(_text_:und in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0198383 = score(doc=3862,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1335454 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.14855097 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
    0.0832972 = weight(_text_:having in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0832972 = score(doc=3862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36014074 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.2312907 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Human beings are information omnivores: we are constantly collecting, labeling, and organizing data. But today, the shift from the physical to the digital is mixing, burning, and ripping our lives apart. In the past, everything had its one place--the physical world demanded it--but now everything has its places: multiple categories, multiple shelves. Simply put, everything is suddenly miscellaneous. In Everything Is Miscellaneous, David Weinberger charts the new principles of digital order that are remaking business, education, politics, science, and culture. In his rollicking tour of the rise of the miscellaneous, he examines why the Dewey decimal system is stretched to the breaking point, how Rand McNally decides what information not to include in a physical map (and why Google Earth is winning that battle), how Staples stores emulate online shopping to increase sales, why your children's teachers will stop having them memorize facts, and how the shift to digital music stands as the model for the future in virtually every industry. Finally, he shows how by "going miscellaneous," anyone can reap rewards from the deluge of information in modern work and life. From A to Z, Everything Is Miscellaneous will completely reshape the way you think--and what you know--about the world.

Footnote

Weitere Rez. in: BuB 59(2007) H.10, S.750-751 (J. Plieninger: Vermischtes und noch mehr ...): "Dass dieses Buch den Bibliothekaren gewidmet ist, stimmt tröstlich. Denn auf den Punkt gebracht, bedeutet sein Inhalt für unseren Berufsstand: Es kommt nicht mehr auf Euch an! Die Kernthese, die der Autor, ein bekannter Publizist zum Internet und Mitglied einer Harvard-Institution, in diesem Essay überaus anregend und mit vielen Beispielen gespickt ausführt, lautet: Dem Informationsüberfluss durch elektronische Dokumente kann nur noch durch noch mehr Information begegnet werden. ..." Weitere Rez. in JASIST 60(2009) no.6, S.1299-1300 (G Thornton). Vgl. für Rezensionen auch: http://www.everythingismiscellaneous.com/reviews/.

0.050485734 = product of:
  0.20194294 = sum of:
    0.20194294 = weight(_text_:having in 793) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20194294 = score(doc=793,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.36014074 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.5607334 = fieldWeight in 793, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=793)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Investigates whether a correlation exists between a UK university's academic excellence, as judged by its Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) ratings, and the amount spent on its library. Considers both macro and micro levels, looking at institutions as a whole, and on a departmental level within the area of archaeology. As well as comparing all the higher education institutions, this group is broken down further, comparing the ratings and spending of the Russell and 94 Groups. There are correlations between the different groups of higher education institutions and RAE ratings. However, rather than high RAE ratings causing high library spending or high library spending causing high RAE ratings, it is likely that they are indirectly linked, good universities having both high RAE ratings and good libraries and poor universities having low RAE ratings and less money spent on libraries. Also describes how libraries in universities with archaeology departments allocate budgets.

0.049788713 = product of:
  0.09957743 = sum of:
    0.040079415 = weight(_text_:und in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040079415 = score(doc=33,freq=48.0), product of:
        0.1335454 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.30011827 = fieldWeight in 33, product of:
          6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
            48.0 = termFreq=48.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=33)
    0.05949801 = weight(_text_:having in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05949801 = score(doc=33,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36014074 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.16520765 = fieldWeight in 33, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=33)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This book covers the key aspects of information architecture: core elements of information management - indexing, cataloguing and classification - organising and recording information in the digital environment. The book also focuses on design - specifically user-centred design: designing information systems that support the needs of users, by providing attractive, intuitive interfaces that support a range of information tasks and accommodate a range of individual resources. Key Features: (1) Is aimed at information professionals - existing texts in this emerging area are primarily aimed at web managers. (2) Is a straightforward introduction to the area. The Author: Dr Batley is a senior lecturer at the London Metropolitan University with teaching and research in the areas of organisation and retrieval of information and knowledge resources. Having completed a PhD on factors affecting the retrieval of information from picture databases in 1989, she worked as a subject librarian at the University of East London, before taking up her current post in 1996. Dr Batley is the author of another Chandos book, 'Classification in Theory and Practice'. Readership: The book is aimed at library and information practitioners; students of librarianship, information studies and information management. Contents: Introduction to information architecture Managing content Document description and content analysis Needs, task and resource analysis Indexing and ontologies Metadata Classification and taxonomy creation User-centred design and evaluation

Footnote

Rez. in: Mitt. VÖB 60(2007) H.2, S.70-74 (O. Oberhauser): "In unseren Breiten ist der Begriff "information architecture" (IA) noch nicht sehr geläufig. Zwar existiert bereits das Äquivalent "Informationsarchitektur - so weist nicht nur die deutschsprachige Wikipedia einen entsprechenden Eintrag auf, sondern man findet auch im Dreiländerkatalog mittels Titelwortsuche "ungefähr 12" Treffer dazu -, doch wer aus unseren Kreisen vermag den Begriffsumfang anzugeben, den Terminus zu erläutern bzw. abzugrenzen? Haben wir es mit einem Modebegriff zu tun? Mit einem Quasi-Synonym zu bestehenden Begriffen wie Informations- oder Wissensorganisation? Wurden gar Klassifikation bzw. Thesaurus - eben erst zu "Taxonomien" umgemodelt - schon wieder einmal neu erfunden oder entdeckt? Geht man dem Terminus "information architecture" nach, so erfährt man, vielleicht mit einem gewissen Erstaunen, zum Beispiel folgendes: - der Begriff wurde bereits 1975 von dem Architekten und Graphikdesigner Richard Wurman geprägt, der sich damit auf eine bessere und benutzerfreundlichere, von architektonischen Prinzipien inspirierte Gestaltung von Informationen bezog; - der Terminus setzte sich allerdings erst mit der Publikation des Buches der aus dem bibliothekarischen Kontext stammenden Autoren Rosenfeld und Morville (1998, soeben in dritter Auflage erschienen) sowie einer ASIS&T-Tagung zur Definition von IA (2000) in breiteren Kreisen durch; - spätestens mit der Publikation von "Information architects" hat Wurman auch diesen, eine Tätigkeit bzw. einen Beruf beschreibenden Terminus etabliert; - seit 2002 besteht das "Information Architecture Institute" (IIA), eine Non-Profit-Organisation zur Entwicklung und Förderung von IA, mit bereits über 1000 Mitgliedern in 60 Staaten und einer Website in acht Sprachen; - (amerikanische) Universitäten haben bereits mit der Etablierung von IA-Studiengängen bzw. Vertiefungsrichtungen (etwa im Fach Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft) begonnen.
Dem Begriff IA kann also nicht mehr ausgewichen werden. Was ist nun wirklich damit gemeint? Das IIA gibt folgende Definition: "1. Das strukturelle Design von gemeinschaftlich genutzten Informationsumgebungen. 2. Die Kunst und Wissenschaft Websites, Intranets, Online-Communitys [sic!] und Software zu strukturieren und Bezeichnungssysteme zu entwickeln, um Usability und die Auffindbarkeit von Inhalten herzustellen. 3. Eine sich herauskristallisierende Community von Praktikern, die Designund Architekturprinzipien in die digitale Landschaft einführen will." Bei Rosenfeld & Morville (Auflage 1998) heisst es - nicht unähnlich, aber doch nicht deckungsgleich -, IA sei: 1. The combination of organization, labeling, and navigation schemes within an information system. 2. The structural design of an information space to facilitate task completion and intuitive access to content. 3. The art and science of structuring and classifying web sites and intranets to help people find and manage information. 4. An emerging discipline and community of practice focusing on bringing principles of design and architecture to the digital landscape. IA hat aber wohl nicht nur mit dem Design von Websites zu tun. Sue Batley, deren Buch sich im Gegensatz zu jenem der beiden amerikanischen Autoren nicht an Webdesigner, sondern an Informationsspezialisten wendet, betont im ersten Kapitel, dass es gegenwärtig (noch) keine allgemeingültige Definition für IA gebe; zuviel sei noch in Entwicklung bzw. im Fluss. Sie sieht, mit Blick auf die Zielgruppe der Informationsspezialisten, IA als eine Verbindung der Kernelemente des Informationsmanagements mit den Prinzipien des benutzerzentrierten Designs. Die Verbesserung von Auffindbarkeit ("increasing findability") gilt ihr hier als die wesentliche Aktivität. Als zentrale Begriffe in diesem Zusammenhang stellt Batley daher auch "indexes and indexing", "classification", "cataloguing" sowie "user-centered design" (von Informationssystemen) vor.
Im zweiten Kapitel, das ich für besonders lesenswert halte, beschäftigt sich die Autorin mit vier als "preliminaries" bezeichneten Stadien im Prozess des Designs von Informationssystemen: "information needs analysis" (welche Informationen werden benötigt), "task analysis" (für welche Aufgaben werden die Informationen benötigt), "resource analysis" (welche persönliche Kompetenzen bzw. praktischen Fähigkeiten stehen den präsumtiven Benutzern bereits zur Verfügung), "user modelling" (Segmentierung bzw. Kategorisierung der Anwender). In diesem Zusammenhang werden auch Begriffe wie "information audit" oder "needs assessment" erläutert sowie methodische Frage angerissen; zudem wird eine kleine Fallstudie als Beispiel präsentiert. Das folgende Kapitel ("Searching and finding") konzentriert sich auf die Informationssuche bzw. auf Retrievalaspekte. Dabei werden die Strategien des Suchens und Browsings im allgemeinen wie auch im besonderen (z.B. Boolesche Suchformulierungen, bibliothekarische Klassifikationen und Webtaxonomien) vorgestellt. Daran schliesst sich ein Kapitel über Dokumente und Dokumentbeschreibungen, in dem auf formale wie auch auf inhaltliche Aspekte der Dokumente (Metadaten vs. Thesauri) eingegangen wird. Kapitel 5 hat dann wieder einen höheren Neuigkeitswert für den bibliothekarischen Leser, da es hier um "interface and display design" geht. Begriffe wie Mensch-Maschine-Schnittstelle und mentale Modelle der Interaktion mit Computern (Metaphern) werden hier ebenso vorgestellt wie Interaktionsstile (z.B. Kommandosprachen vs. Formulare, Web-Kataloge) und grundsätzliche Designprinzipien (Bildschirmlayout, Navigation, Graphik etc.) Das darauf folgende kurze Kapitel "Management and maintenance" thematisiert Aspekte wie Content Management sowie organisatorische Fragen. In "Evaluation", dem abschliessenden Kapitel, geht es schliesslich um die Abschätzung von Wert und Qualität der durchgeführten "Informationsarchitektur", also um Wirksamkeit und Leistungsfähigkeit eines Systems (gemessen z.B. mittels bekannter Parameter wie Precision und Recall), aber auch um die damit erzielte Benutzerzufriedenheit.
Wie aus dieser kurzen Beschreibung ersichtlich wird, wartet das Buch mit zahlreichen interessanten Themen auf - oder reisst diese eben nur kurz an. Vielfach hätte man sich auch von einer Einführung mehr Detailreichtum erwartet, wobei natürlich nicht bekannt ist, welche Vorgaben die Autorin im Hinblick auf den Umfang des Buches zu beachten hatte. Meinem persönlichen Geschmack nach hätte der Band jedenfalls ruhig doppelt so dick sein dürfen, um mehr als nur einen kurzen Einstieg bieten zu können. Immerhin, so sei konzediert, enthält aber jedes Kapitel eine gute Auswahl an Hinweisen auf weiterführende Literatur. Wie auch schon ihrem vor zwei Jahren erschienenen Klassifikationsbuch9 ist Batley insgesamt eine aufgelockerte und gut lesbare Darstellung gelungen. Die eingangs gestellte Frage - Modebegriff? Quasi-Synonym? - beantwortet das Buch indes nicht wirklich. Die Verbindung der Kernelemente des Informationsmanagements mit den Prinzipien des benutzerzentrierten Designs erscheint mir eigentlich als nichts wesentlich Neues - hätte Informationsdesign nicht schon immer so sein sollen? Gerade nach der Lektüre des vorliegenden Buches werde ich den Verdacht nicht los, dass der Neologismus "Informationsarchitektur" mehr schick als inhaltsschwer ist. Man mag darin vielleicht den Versuch sehen, Vorhandenes aus einer anderen Perspektive zu betrachten oder auch das Bestreben, Inhalte und Themen aus dem Kernbereich der Bibliotheks- und Informationspraxis für Interessenten ohne einschlägige Vorbildung schmackhaft und/oder verständlich aufzubereiten. Die Ambition, dies zu einer Tätigkeits- oder Berufsbezeichnung ("information architect") hochzustilisieren, kommt mir wenigstens so fragwürdig vor wie das seinerzeitige, unselige und immer noch nicht vollständig überwundene Auseinanderdividieren von Bibliothekaren und Dokumentaren."

0.047598403 = product of:
  0.19039361 = sum of:
    0.19039361 = weight(_text_:having in 3855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19039361 = score(doc=3855,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36014074 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.52866447 = fieldWeight in 3855, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3855)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The libraries of more and more universities and research institutions have local digital repositories, and the amount of material is increasing every day. Users need an integrated retrieval interface that allows aggregated searching across multiple document servers without having to resort to manual processes. ProPrint offers an on-demand print service within Germany for over 2,000 monographs and 1,000 journals. Partners worldwide are now invited to join.

0.047598403 = product of:
  0.19039361 = sum of:
    0.19039361 = weight(_text_:having in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19039361 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36014074 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.52866447 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Daghestanian languages are traditionally described as having a distinct experiencer, or affective, construction used with experiencer verbs, with the experiencer in an oblique case (dative, locative, affective, etc.) and the stimulus in the absolutive. This paper explores the basic morphological and syntactic features of this experiencer construction in a broad sample of these languages.

0.042071443 = product of:
  0.16828577 = sum of:
    0.16828577 = weight(_text_:having in 2092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16828577 = score(doc=2092,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.36014074 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.4672778 = fieldWeight in 2092, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2092)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Bericht über: Levels of Reality, Seminar, Bolzano (Bozen) Italy, 26-28 September 2007: Ontologies, the knowledge organization systems now widely used in knowledge management applications, take their name from a branch of philosophy. Philosophical ontology deals with the kinds and the properties of what exists, and with how they can be described by categories like entity, attribute, or process. Readers familiar with facet analysis will notice some analogy with the "fundamental categories" of faceted classifications, and this resemblance is not accidental. Indeed, knowledge organization systems use conceptual structures that can be variously reconnected with the categories of ontology. Though having more practical purposes, the ontologies and classifications of information science can benefit of those of philosophy.
Darin: "However, John Sowa (Vivomind, USA) argued in his speech that the formalized approach, already undertaken by the pioneering project Cyc now having run for 23 years, is not the best way to analyze complex systems. People don't really use axioms in their cognitive processes (even mathematicians first get an idea intuitively, then work on axioms and proofs only at the moment of writing papers). To map between different ontologies, the Vivomind Analogy Engine throws axioms out, and searches instead for analogies in their structures. Analogy is a pragmatic human faculty using a combination of the three logical procedures of deduction, induction, and abduction. Guarino comments that people can communicate without need of axioms as they share a common context, but in order to teach computers how to operate, the requirements are different: he would not trust an airport control system working by analogy."

0.042071443 = product of:
  0.16828577 = sum of:
    0.16828577 = weight(_text_:having in 2314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16828577 = score(doc=2314,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.36014074 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.4672778 = fieldWeight in 2314, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2314)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A survey of 4,032 youth in grades 5 through 12 was conducted to determine the impact youth's use of the Internet was having on their use of the public library. Results indicated that 100% of the youth had access to the Internet from one or more locations, and that although one quarter of the youth accessed the Internet at the public library, the public library was the least frequently used source of Internet access. For youth without Internet access at home, the public library was also the least used alternate source of access. Approximately 69% of the youth reported that they had visited a public library during the school year. Having Internet access at home did not affect whether or not youth visited the library however, Internet access at home appears to have affected the frequency with which youth visit the library. Youth without Internet access at home visited the library more frequently, whereas youth with Internet access at home visited the library less frequently. Use of the Internet also appeared to have diminished youth's need to use the public library as a source of personal information however, use of the Internet appeared not to have affected their use of the public library for school work or for recreation. Among youth, use of both the Internet and the public library appear to be complementary activities.

0.042071443 = product of:
  0.16828577 = sum of:
    0.16828577 = weight(_text_:having in 3085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16828577 = score(doc=3085,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.36014074 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.4672778 = fieldWeight in 3085, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3085)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Classical test theory offers theoretically derived reliability measures such as Cronbach's alpha, which can be applied to measure the reliability of a set of Information Retrieval test results. The theory also supports item analysis, which identifies queries that are hampering the test's reliability, and which may be candidates for refinement or removal. A generalization of Classical Test Theory, called Generalizability Theory, provides an even richer set of tools. It allows us to estimate the reliability of a test as a function of the number of queries, assessors (relevance judges), and other aspects of the test's design. One novel aspect of Generalizability Theory is that it allows this estimation of reliability even before the test collection exists, based purely on the numbers of queries and assessors that it will contain. These calculations can help test designers in advance, by allowing them to compare the reliability of test designs with various numbers of queries and relevance assessors, and to spend their limited budgets on a design that maximizes reliability. Empirical analysis shows that in cases for which our data is representative, having more queries is more helpful for reliability than having more assessors. It also suggests that reliability may be improved with a per-document performance measure, as opposed to a document-set based performance measure, where appropriate. The theory also clarifies the implicit debate in IR literature regarding the nature of error in relevance judgments.

0.042071443 = product of:
  0.16828577 = sum of:
    0.16828577 = weight(_text_:having in 3374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16828577 = score(doc=3374,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.36014074 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.4672778 = fieldWeight in 3374, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3374)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Four subjects - ecology, applied mathematics, sociology, and economics - were selected to assess whether there is a citation advantage between journal articles that have an open-access (OA) version on the Internet compared to those articles that are exclusively toll access (TA). Citations were counted using the Web of Science, and the OA status of articles was determined by searching OAIster, OpenDOAR, Google, and Google Scholar. Of a sample of 4,633 articles examined, 2,280 (49%) were OA and had a mean citation count of 9.04 whereas the mean for TA articles was 5.76. There appears to be a clear citation advantage for those articles that are OA as opposed to those that are TA. This advantage, however, varies between disciplines, with sociology having the highest citation advantage, but the lowest number of OA articles, from the sample taken, and ecology having the highest individual citation count for OA articles, but the smallest citation advantage. Tests of correlation or association between OA status and a number of variables were generally found to weak or inconsistent. The cause of this citation advantage has not been determined.

0.042071443 = product of:
  0.16828577 = sum of:
    0.16828577 = weight(_text_:having in 301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16828577 = score(doc=301,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.36014074 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.4672778 = fieldWeight in 301, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=301)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In litigation in the US, the parties are obligated to produce to one another, when requested, those documents that are potentially relevant to issues and facts of the litigation (called discovery). As the volume of electronic documents continues to grow, the expense of dealing with this obligation threatens to surpass the amounts at issue and the time to identify these relevant documents can delay a case for months or years. The same holds true for government investigations and third-parties served with subpoenas. As a result, litigants are looking for ways to reduce the time and expense of discovery. One approach is to supplant or reduce the traditional means of having people, usually attorneys, read each document, with automated procedures that use information retrieval and machine categorization to identify the relevant documents. This study compared an original categorization, obtained as part of a response to a Department of Justice Request and produced by having one or more of 225 attorneys review each document with automated categorization systems provided by two legal service providers. The goal was to determine whether the automated systems could categorize documents at least as well as human reviewers could, thereby saving time and expense. The results support the idea that machine categorization is no less accurate at identifying relevant/responsive documents than employing a team of reviewers. Based on these results, it would appear that using machine categorization can be a reasonable substitute for human review.

0.0416486 = product of:
  0.1665944 = sum of:
    0.1665944 = weight(_text_:having in 3065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1665944 = score(doc=3065,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36014074 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.4625814 = fieldWeight in 3065, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3065)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study, the fourth and last of a series designed to produce new information to improve retrievability of books in libraries, explores the effectiveness of retrieving a known-item book using words from titles only. From daily printouts of circulation records at the Walter Royal Davis Library of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 749 titles were taken and then searched an the 4-million entry catalog at the library of the University of Michigan. The principal finding was that searches produced titles having personal authors 81.4% of the time and anonymous titles 91.5% of the time; these figures are 15 and 5%, respectively, lower than the lowest findings presented in the previous three articles of this series (Kilgour, 1995; 1997; 2001).

0.0416486 = product of:
  0.1665944 = sum of:
    0.1665944 = weight(_text_:having in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1665944 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36014074 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.4625814 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the second bibliometric paper SzavaKovtas uses ``indirectcollective references, ICR'' to mean such instances as those in which an author refers to, ``the references contained therein,'' when referring to another source. Having previously shown a high instance of occurrences in Physical Reviews, he now uses the January 1997 issues of 40 journals from the ISI physics category plus two optics journals, an instrumentation journal, and a physics journal launched in 1997, to locate ICR. The phenomena exists in all but one of the sampled journals and in the next, but unsampled, issue of that journal. Overall 17% of papers sampled display ICR with little fluctuation within internal categories.

0.0416486 = product of:
  0.1665944 = sum of:
    0.1665944 = weight(_text_:having in 202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1665944 = score(doc=202,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36014074 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.4625814 = fieldWeight in 202, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=202)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this issue we begin with ``Mooers' Law: In and Out of Context.'' Brice points out that Moores meant that having information was not always considered a good thing by a user since it required the expenditure of effort to make use of it, not that a system might not be used because the use itself was an expenditure of extra effort. While this may be a principle of retrieval usage it is not that stated by Moores. This leads to a suggestion that system use depends upon the user's environmental level of desire for information; If high any IR system will be used, if low, no IR.

0.0416486 = product of:
  0.1665944 = sum of:
    0.1665944 = weight(_text_:having in 2359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1665944 = score(doc=2359,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36014074 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.4625814 = fieldWeight in 2359, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2359)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study revisits managers who were first interviewed more than 10 years ago to identify their personal information management (PIM) behaviors. The purpose of this study was to see how advances in technology and access to the Web may have affected their PIM behaviors. PIM behaviors seem to have changed little over time, suggesting that technological advances are less important in determining how individuals organize and use information than are the tasks that they perform. Managers identified increased volume of e-mail and the frustration with having to access multiple systems with different, unsynchronized passwords as their greatest PIM challenges. Organizational implications are discussed.

0.04122143 = product of:
  0.16488571 = sum of:
    0.16488571 = weight(_text_:having in 3010) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16488571 = score(doc=3010,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.36014074 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.4578369 = fieldWeight in 3010, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3010)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Wikipedia (the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit) is having a huge impact on how a great many people gather information about the world. So, it is important for epistemologists and information scientists to ask whether people are likely to acquire knowledge as a result of having access to this information source. In other words, is Wikipedia having good epistemic consequences? After surveying the various concerns that have been raised about the reliability of Wikipedia, this article argues that the epistemic consequences of people using Wikipedia as a source of information are likely to be quite good. According to several empirical studies, the reliability of Wikipedia compares favorably to the reliability of traditional encyclopedias. Furthermore, the reliability of Wikipedia compares even more favorably to the reliability of those information sources that people would be likely to use if Wikipedia did not exist (viz., Web sites that are as freely and easily accessible as Wikipedia). In addition, Wikipedia has a number of other epistemic virtues (e.g., power, speed, and fecundity) that arguably outweigh any deficiency in terms of reliability. Even so, epistemologists and information scientists should certainly be trying to identify changes (or alternatives) to Wikipedia that will bring about even better epistemic consequences. This article suggests that to improve Wikipedia, we need to clarify what our epistemic values are and to better understand why Wikipedia works as well as it does. Somebody who reads Wikipedia is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom, says Mr. McHenry, Britannica's former editor. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him. One wonders whether people like Mr. McHenry would prefer there to be no public lavatories at all. The Economist (Vol. 379, April 22, 2006, pp. 14-15)

0.040607505 = product of:
  0.08121501 = sum of:
    0.00981741 = weight(_text_:und in 2169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00981741 = score(doc=2169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1335454 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.07351366 = fieldWeight in 2169, 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=2169)
    0.0713976 = weight(_text_:having in 2169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0713976 = score(doc=2169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36014074 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.19824918 = fieldWeight in 2169, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2169)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

T.1: Today's thesauri are mostly electronic tools, having moved on from the paper-based era when thesaurus standards were first developed. They are built and maintained with the support of software and need to integrate with other software, such as search engines and content management systems. Whereas in the past thesauri were designed for information professionals trained in indexing and searching, today there is a demand for vocabularies that untrained users will find to be intuitive. ISO 25964 makes the transition needed for the world of electronic information management. However, part 1 retains the assumption that human intellect is usually involved in the selection of indexing terms and in the selection of search terms. If both the indexer and the searcher are guided to choose the same term for the same concept, then relevant documents will be retrieved. This is the main principle underlying thesaurus design, even though a thesaurus built for human users may also be applied in situations where computers make the choices. Efficient exchange of data is a vital component of thesaurus management and exploitation. Hence the inclusion in this standard of recommendations for exchange formats and protocols. Adoption of these will facilitate interoperability between thesaurus management systems and the other computer applications, such as indexing and retrieval systems, that will utilize the data. Thesauri are typically used in post-coordinate retrieval systems, but may also be applied to hierarchical directories, pre-coordinate indexes and classification systems. Increasingly, thesaurus applications need to mesh with others, such as automatic categorization schemes, free-text search systems, etc. Part 2 of ISO 25964 describes additional types of structured vocabulary and gives recommendations to enable interoperation of the vocabularies at all stages of the information storage and retrieval process.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0356988 = product of:
  0.1427952 = sum of:
    0.1427952 = weight(_text_:having in 5533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1427952 = score(doc=5533,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36014074 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060212567 = queryNorm
        0.39649835 = fieldWeight in 5533, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5533)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

There are similarities between information management (IM) and knowledge management (KM), but the latter is wider in scope and includes (especially) aspects of process and learning which are not major concerns of information management as generally understood. This article presents theoretical considerations on both similarities and differences between IM and KM, and summarises the points made into a conceptual model of basic KM processes. It is emphasised that KM operates in a quite different way from IM and that management must see 'knowledge' in a much wider sense than that of document storage and retrieval per se. The point is made that a knowledge management perspective on business processes, training and achievement of business objectives is relevant in a different way from IM which has up till now been used in an information service way to refer to repository-based systems. This point is illustrated by using TQM as an example. The examination of TQM-based management tools reveals that the application of these tools is interesting from a KM point of view, having significant consequences especially in terms of knowledge creation, accumulation and sharing