Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.034729347 = product of:
  0.06945869 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 1199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=1199,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 1199, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1199)
    0.06259242 = weight(_text_:standards in 1199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06259242 = score(doc=1199,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27855965 = fieldWeight in 1199, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1199)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

On 18 November 2002, at a meeting organised by the CORES Project (Information Society Technologies Programme, European Union), several organisations regarded as maintenance authorities for metadata elements achieved consensus on a resolution to assign Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) to metadata elements as a useful first step towards the development of mapping infrastructures and interoperability services. The signatories of the CORES Resolution agreed to promote this consensus in their communities and beyond and to implement an action plan in the following six months. Six months having passed, the maintainers of GILS, ONIX, MARC 21, CERIF, DOI, IEEE/LOM, and Dublin Core report on their implementations of the resolution and highlight issues of relevance to establishing good-practice conventions for declaring, identifying, and maintaining metadata elements more generally. In June 2003, the resolution was also endorsed by the maintainers of UNIMARC. The "Resolution on Metadata Element Identifiers", or CORES Resolution, is an agreement among the maintenance organisations for several major metadata standards - GILS, ONIX, MARC 21, UNIMARC, CERIF, DOI®, IEEE/LOM, and Dublin Core - to identify their metadata elements using Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs). The Uniform Resource Identifier, defined in the IETF RFC 2396 as "a compact string of characters for identifying an abstract or physical resource", has been promoted for use as a universal form of identification by the World Wide Web Consortium. The CORES Resolution, formulated at a meeting organised by the European project CORES in November 2002, included a commitment to publicise the consensus statement to a wider audience of metadata standards initiatives and to implement key points of the agreement within the following six months - specifically, to define URI assignment mechanisms, assign URIs to elements, and formulate policies for the persistence of those URIs. This article marks the passage of six months by reporting on progress made in implementing this common action plan. After presenting the text of the CORES Resolution and its three "clarifications", the article summarises the position of each signatory organisation towards assigning URIs to its metadata elements, noting any practical or strategic problems that may have emerged. These progress reports were based on input from Thomas Baker, José Borbinha, Eliot Christian, Erik Duval, Keith Jeffery, Rebecca Guenther, and Norman Paskin. The article closes with a few general observations about these first steps towards the clarification of shared conventions for the identification of metadata elements and perhaps, one can hope, towards the ultimate goal of improving interoperability among a diversity of metadata communities.

0.011685811 = product of:
  0.023371622 = sum of:
    0.009710376 = weight(_text_:information in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009710376 = score(doc=1236,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
    0.013661247 = product of:
      0.027322493 = sum of:
        0.027322493 = weight(_text_:22 in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027322493 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1236, 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=1236)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Dublin Core is often presented as a modern form of catalog card -- a set of elements (and now qualifiers) that describe resources in a complete package. Sometimes it is proposed as an exchange format for sharing records among multiple collections. The founding principle that "every element is optional and repeatable" reinforces the notion that a Dublin Core description is to be taken as a whole. This paper, in contrast, is based on a much different premise: Dublin Core is a language. More precisely, it is a small language for making a particular class of statements about resources. Like natural languages, it has a vocabulary of word-like terms, the two classes of which -- elements and qualifiers -- function within statements like nouns and adjectives; and it has a syntax for arranging elements and qualifiers into statements according to a simple pattern. Whenever tourists order a meal or ask directions in an unfamiliar language, considerate native speakers will spontaneously limit themselves to basic words and simple sentence patterns along the lines of "I am so-and-so" or "This is such-and-such". Linguists call this pidginization. In such situations, a small phrase book or translated menu can be most helpful. By analogy, today's Web has been called an Internet Commons where users and information providers from a wide range of scientific, commercial, and social domains present their information in a variety of incompatible data models and description languages. In this context, Dublin Core presents itself as a metadata pidgin for digital tourists who must find their way in this linguistically diverse landscape. Its vocabulary is small enough to learn quickly, and its basic pattern is easily grasped. It is well-suited to serve as an auxiliary language for digital libraries. This grammar starts by defining terms. It then follows a 200-year-old tradition of English grammar teaching by focusing on the structure of single statements. It concludes by looking at the growing dictionary of Dublin Core vocabulary terms -- its registry, and at how statements can be used to build the metadata equivalent of paragraphs and compositions -- the application profile.

Date

26.12.2011 14:01:22

0.0042914203 = product of:
  0.017165681 = sum of:
    0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 1279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017165681 = score(doc=1279,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1279, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1279)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of digital information. 2(2002) no.2,

0.0026552628 = product of:
  0.010621051 = sum of:
    0.010621051 = product of:
      0.021242103 = sum of:
        0.021242103 = weight(_text_:organization in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021242103 = score(doc=4872,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.11817598 = fieldWeight in 4872, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4872)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

"1. Die Konferenz Vom 12. bis 15. September 2005 fand in Leganés (Madrid) die "International Conference an Dublin Core and Metadata Applications" mit dem Thema "Vocabularies in Practice" statt [DC2005]. Gastgeber war der Fachbereich Bibliothekswesen und Dokumentation der "Universidad Carlos III de Madrid" zusammen mit dem Institut "Agustin Millares" für Dokumentation und Wissensmanagement. Den 214 Teilnehmern aus 33 Ländern wurden 14 ausführliche und 18 Kurzpräsentationen geboten sowie zehn "Special Sessions" [DC2005-PAPERS]. Fünf Einführungsseminare zu Themen der Metadaten und maschinell verarbeitbarer Thesauri wurden abgehalten. Die Hauptreden der vier Konferenztage wurden von Thomas Baker (Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen), Ricardo Baeza (University of Chile), Johannes Keizer (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) und Eric Miller (World Wide Web Consortium) gehalten. Plenarvorträge wurden simultan ins Spanische übersetzt und mehrere Treffen wurden in französischer oder spanischer Sprache abgehalten. Die Dublin-Core-Konferenz ist auch das zentrale Ereignis des Jahres für die Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) als Organisation. Vor und nach der Konferenz tagten das DCMI Board of Trustees, ein Gremium aus Metadatenexperten und nationalen Vertretern ("Affiliates"); das "Usage Board", das den Standard inhaltlich verwaltet, und das "Advisory Board", das hauptsächlich aus Leitern von DCMI-Arbeitsgruppen besteht. Während der Konferenz haben sich vierzehn Arbeitsgruppen zu speziellen Fragen im Bereich Metadaten getroffen. 2. Von der Kernsemantik zum Modell "Zehn Jahre Dublin Core" war der Hintergrund für die Keynote-Präsehtation von Thomas Baker, DCMI Director of Specifications and Documentation. März 1995 fand in Dublin (Ohio) der Workshop statt, auf dem die Kernelemente erstmals entworfen wurden - Creator, Subject, Date, usw. - die der Initiative den Namen gegeben haben. Dieser "Dublin Core" wurde 1998 bei der Internet Engineering Task Force als Request for Comments (RFC 2413) publiziert, 2000 formal als Standard in Europa (CWA 13874/2000 bei CEN), 2001 in den USA (Z39.95 bei NISO) und 2003 international (ISO 15836/2003) anerkannt [DUBLINCORE]. Am Anfang wurde der Dublin Core als Datenformat konzipiert - d.h. als streng festgelegte Vorlage für digitale Karteikarten. Bereits früh wurden die Elemente jedoch als Vokabular aufgefasst, d.h. als Satz prinzipiell rekombinierbarer Elemente für Beschreibungen, die den Anforderungen spezifischer Anwendungsbereiche angepasst werden konnten - kurz, als Bausteine für Anwendungsprofile. Ausgehend von der vermeintlich simplen Aufgabe, Webseiten auf einfache Art zu beschreiben, hat sich ab 1997 in gegenseitiger Beeinflussung mit der sich entwickelnden Webtechnik von HTML bis hin zu XML und RDF ein allgemeines Modell für Metadaten herauskristallisiert.