Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.022348972 = product of:
  0.08939589 = sum of:
    0.08939589 = weight(_text_:data in 4796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08939589 = score(doc=4796,freq=56.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.7394569 = fieldWeight in 4796, product of:
          7.483315 = tf(freq=56.0), with freq of:
            56.0 = termFreq=56.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4796)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The mission of the W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group, chartered from May 2010 through August 2011, has been "to help increase global interoperability of library data on the Web, by bringing together people involved in Semantic Web activities - focusing on Linked Data - in the library community and beyond, building on existing initiatives, and identifying collaboration tracks for the future." In Linked Data [LINKEDDATA], data is expressed using standards such as Resource Description Framework (RDF) [RDF], which specifies relationships between things, and Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs, or "Web addresses") [URI]. This final report of the Incubator Group examines how Semantic Web standards and Linked Data principles can be used to make the valuable information assets that library create and curate - resources such as bibliographic data, authorities, and concept schemes - more visible and re-usable outside of their original library context on the wider Web. The Incubator Group began by eliciting reports on relevant activities from parties ranging from small, independent projects to national library initiatives (see the separate report, Library Linked Data Incubator Group: Use Cases) [USECASE]. These use cases provided the starting point for the work summarized in the report: an analysis of the benefits of library Linked Data, a discussion of current issues with regard to traditional library data, existing library Linked Data initiatives, and legal rights over library data; and recommendations for next steps. The report also summarizes the results of a survey of current Linked Data technologies and an inventory of library Linked Data resources available today (see also the more detailed report, Library Linked Data Incubator Group: Datasets, Value Vocabularies, and Metadata Element Sets) [VOCABDATASET].
Key recommendations of the report are: - That library leaders identify sets of data as possible candidates for early exposure as Linked Data and foster a discussion about Open Data and rights; - That library standards bodies increase library participation in Semantic Web standardization, develop library data standards that are compatible with Linked Data, and disseminate best-practice design patterns tailored to library Linked Data; - That data and systems designers design enhanced user services based on Linked Data capabilities, create URIs for the items in library datasets, develop policies for managing RDF vocabularies and their URIs, and express library data by re-using or mapping to existing Linked Data vocabularies; - That librarians and archivists preserve Linked Data element sets and value vocabularies and apply library experience in curation and long-term preservation to Linked Data datasets.

0.014166246 = product of:
  0.056664985 = sum of:
    0.056664985 = weight(_text_:data in 2025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056664985 = score(doc=2025,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.46871632 = fieldWeight in 2025, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2025)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Evolving from database models using punch cards, strict linear relational databases and predefined object-oriented data structures, the triple statements underlying Semantic Web technologies bypass many design constraints to offer endless flexibility. Overcoming structure is challenging, especially the relatively recent structure formalized in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). Though geared to easier access and interoperability and recognizing a multilevel bibliographic model, FRBR remains tied to translating entity-relation diagrams to data structures. Resource Description Framework (RDF) provides a more flexible way to express concepts, in which bibliographic models may be thought of as graphs of properties and relationships. But even RDF-based models can undermine that flexibility by mixing concept classes and data structures. The advantage of RDF classes is to provide semantics that enable a user to focus on similarities, not bound by contextual constraints.and success metrics.

Footnote

Contribution to a special section "Linked data and the charm of weak semantics".

0.012670675 = product of:
  0.0506827 = sum of:
    0.0506827 = weight(_text_:data in 4169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0506827 = score(doc=4169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.4192326 = fieldWeight in 4169, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4169)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.012670675 = product of:
  0.0506827 = sum of:
    0.0506827 = weight(_text_:data in 4170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0506827 = score(doc=4170,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.4192326 = fieldWeight in 4170, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4170)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.010452774 = product of:
  0.041811097 = sum of:
    0.041811097 = weight(_text_:data in 2174) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041811097 = score(doc=2174,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.34584928 = fieldWeight in 2174, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2174)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The article analyzes the conceptual model of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) as a general model of bibliographic data and description that can be interpreted, as needed, to serve the needs of various communities. This is illustrated with descriptions of five different implementations based on the concepts in FRBR: FRBRER (entity-relation), FRBROO (object oriented), FRBRCore (FRBR entities as linked data), (FRBR entities within the commerce model), and FaBiO (FRBR indecs as a basis for academic document types). The author argues that variant models show the strength of the FRBR concepts, and should be encouraged.

0.005180014 = product of:
  0.020720055 = sum of:
    0.020720055 = product of:
      0.04144011 = sum of:
        0.04144011 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04144011 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13388468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03823278 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.166-174

0.0032375087 = product of:
  0.012950035 = sum of:
    0.012950035 = product of:
      0.02590007 = sum of:
        0.02590007 = weight(_text_:22 in 2786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02590007 = score(doc=2786,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13388468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03823278 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2786, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2786)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

12. 2.2016 16:22:58