Renear, A.H.; Wickett, K.M.; Urban, R.J.; Dubin, D.; Shreeves, S.L.: Collection/item metadata relationships (2008)
0.01
0.00900243 = product of:
0.042011343 = sum of:
0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00856136 = score(doc=2623,freq=4.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
0.025420163 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025420163 = score(doc=2623,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
0.008029819 = product of:
0.024089456 = sum of:
0.024089456 = weight(_text_:22 in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024089456 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- Contemporary retrieval systems, which search across collections, usually ignore collection-level metadata. Alternative approaches, exploiting collection-level information, will require an understanding of the various kinds of relationships that can obtain between collection-level and item-level metadata. This paper outlines the problem and describes a project that is developing a logic-based framework for classifying collection/item metadata relationships. This framework will support (i) metadata specification developers defining metadata elements, (ii) metadata creators describing objects, and (iii) system designers implementing systems that take advantage of collection-level metadata. We present three examples of collection/item metadata relationship categories, attribute/value-propagation, value-propagation, and value-constraint and show that even in these simple cases a precise formulation requires modal notions in addition to first-order logic. These formulations are related to recent work in information retrieval and ontology evaluation.
- Source
- Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
