Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011655224 = product of:
  0.08158656 = sum of:
    0.04079328 = weight(_text_:classification in 5175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04079328 = score(doc=5175,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.42661208 = fieldWeight in 5175, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5175)
    0.04079328 = weight(_text_:classification in 5175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04079328 = score(doc=5175,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.42661208 = fieldWeight in 5175, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5175)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Recent research investigated image attributes as reported by participants in describing, sorting, and searching tasks with images and defined 46 specific image attributes which were then organized into 12 major classes. Attributes were also grouped as being 'perceptual' (directly stimulated by visual percepts), 'interpretive' (requiring inference from visual percepts), and 'reactive' (cognitive and affective responses to the images). This research describes the coverage of two image indexing and classification systems and one general classification system in relation to the previous findings and analyzes the extent to which components of these systems are capable of describing the range of image attributes as revealed by the previous research

0.007708565 = product of:
  0.05395995 = sum of:
    0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02546139 = score(doc=458,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 458, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=458)
    0.02849856 = product of:
      0.05699712 = sum of:
        0.05699712 = weight(_text_:schemes in 458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05699712 = score(doc=458,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.35474116 = fieldWeight in 458, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=458)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Metadata describing multimedia can address a wide variety of purposes, from the purely physical characteristics of an item, to the circumstances surrounding its production, to attributes that cannot necessarily be determined by examining the item itself directly. These latter attributes, often dealing with "meaning" or interpretation of an item's content, are frequently deemed too difficult to determine and subject to individual and cultural variability. At the same time, however, research has shown that these abstract, interpretive attributes, which carry meaning, are frequently the ones for which people search. To describe an item fully, therefore, means to describe it at both the "syntactic" and the "semantic" levels. This article discusses the development of the semantic description schemes within the MPEG-7 standard from both a historical and an intellectual perspective, as well as the difficulties inherent in creating a descriptive schema that can fully capture the complexity of "narrative worlds."

0.0067974646 = product of:
  0.04758225 = sum of:
    0.023791125 = weight(_text_:classification in 6532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023791125 = score(doc=6532,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 6532, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6532)
    0.023791125 = weight(_text_:classification in 6532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023791125 = score(doc=6532,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 6532, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6532)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This article presents exploratory research evaluating a conceptual structure for the description of visual content of images. The structure, which was developed from empirical research in several fields (e.g., Computer Science, Psychology, Information Studies, etc.), classifies visual attributes into a "Pyramid" containing four syntactic levels (type/technique, global distribution, local structure, composition), and six semantic levels (generic, specific, and abstract levels of both object and scene, respectively). Various experiments are presented, which address the Pyramid's ability to achieve several tasks: (1) classification of terms describing image attributes generated in a formal and an informal description task, (2) classification of terms that result from a structured approach to indexing, and (3) guidance in the indexing process. Several descriptions, generated by naive users and indexers, are used in experiments that include two image collections: a random Web sample, and a set of news images. To test descriptions generated in a structured setting, an Image Indexing Template (developed independently over several years of this project by one of the authors) was also used. The experiments performed suggest that the Pyramid is conceptually robust (i.e., can accommodate a full range of attributes), and that it can be used to organize visual content for retrieval, to guide the indexing process, and to classify descriptions obtained manually and automatically

0.002513852 = product of:
  0.035193928 = sum of:
    0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035193928 = score(doc=4877,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 4877, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4877)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The lack of complete and accurate citations for referenced works is a persistent and significant problem in scholarly writing. The advent of new froms of electronic publishing, especially hypermedia, has the potential for either aggravating or alleviating this problem. Incorrect and missing citations will become more prevalent (and, indeed, have become so within large bibliographic databases) without a concerted and ccoperative effort on the part of systems developers to provide adequate references and the means for easily accessing and downloading them. Examines some of the basic issues involved in the problem of maintaining the critical authorship links between source and expression in one specific form of electronic publishing - hypermedia - and proposes some solutions

0.0017956087 = product of:
  0.02513852 = sum of:
    0.02513852 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02513852 = score(doc=1046,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 1046, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1046)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This study aims to identify the categorical characteristics and usage patterns of the most popular image tags in Flickr. The "metadata usage ratio" is introduced as a means of assessing the usage of a popular tag as metadata. We also compare how popular tags are used as image tags or metadata in the Flickr general collection and the Library of Congress's photostream (LCP), also in Flickr. The Flickr popular tags in the list overall are categorically stable, and the changes that do appear reflect Flickr users' evolving technology-driven cultural experience. The popular tags in Flickr had a high number of generic objects and specific locations-related tags and were rarely at the abstract level. Conversely, the popular tags in the LCP describe more in the specific objects and time categories. Flickr users copied the Library of Congress-supplied metadata that related to specific objects or events and standard bibliographic information (e.g., author, format, time references) as popular tags in the LCP. Those popular tags related to generic objects and events showed a high metadata usage ratio, while those related to specific locations and objects showed a low image metadata usage ratio. Popular tags in Flickr appeared less frequently as image metadata when describing specific objects than specific times and locations for historical images in Flickr LCP collections. Understanding how people contribute image tags or image metadata in Flickr helps determine what users need to describe and query images, and could help improve image browsing and retrieval.

0.001696343 = product of:
  0.0237488 = sum of:
    0.0237488 = product of:
      0.0474976 = sum of:
        0.0474976 = weight(_text_:schemes in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0474976 = score(doc=472,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.2956176 = fieldWeight in 472, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=472)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Allowing the description of the structure of documents has been one of the key factors for the success of the hypertext markup language (HTML) family of markup languages. This capability has motivated the phenomenon that has become known as the World Wide Web (the "Web"). The next generation of the Web, known as the Semantic Web (Berners-Lee, Hendler. & Lassila, 2001), aims at describing the meaning rather than the structure of data, adding more intelligent search, retrieval, and other agent functionalities to the Web, and tools that make the implementation of this Semantic Web possible are greatly needed. The increasing availability of multimedia on the World Wide Web makes metadata description efforts for multimedia a pressing need, yet with the volume of content being created, often only a rudimentary description of the multimedia content is available. In addition, the digital mode entails a host of other descriptive needs, such as the format, factors such as compression and transmission, and issues such as copyright restrictions and terns for usage. Thus, new and efficient ways of describing multimedia content and meaning are needed as well as a structure that is capable of carrying such descriptions. Several attempts have been made to grapple with this issue using descriptive metadata, one of the earliest of which was the revision of the Dublin Core to ascertain essential features necessary to resource discovery of visual items in a networked environment (Weibel & Miller, 1997). Other metadata schemes, such as the Visual Resources Association Core Categories (http://www.vraweb.org/vracore3.htm), also include format information necessary to the use and display of digital images.

0.0015155592 = product of:
  0.021217827 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 4117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=4117,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 4117, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4117)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

To enable and guide effective metadata creation it is essential to understand the structure and patterns of the activities of the community around the photographs, resources used, and scale and quality of the socially created metadata relative to the metadata and knowledge already encoded in existing knowledge organization systems. This article presents an analysis of Flickr member discussions around the photographs of the Library of Congress photostream in Flickr. The article also reports on an analysis of the intrinsic and relational quality of the photostream tags relative to two knowledge organization systems: the Thesaurus for Graphic Materials (TGM) and the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). Thirty seven percent of the original tag set and 15.3% of the preprocessed set (after the removal of tags with fewer than three characters and URLs) were invalid or misspelled terms. Nouns, named entity terms, and complex terms constituted approximately 77% of the preprocessed set. More than a half of the photostream tags were not found in the TGM and LCSH, and more than a quarter of those terms were regular nouns and noun phrases. This suggests that these terms could be complimentary to more traditional methods of indexing using controlled vocabularies.

0.0012859944 = product of:
  0.018003922 = sum of:
    0.018003922 = weight(_text_:subject in 3080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018003922 = score(doc=3080,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.16765293 = fieldWeight in 3080, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3080)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 31(2004) no.2, S.114-115 (J. Turner): "Professor Corinne Jörgensen's book will be useful to researchers, practitioners, and graduate students working in the area of the management of collections of still images. The book is a fine piece of scholarship that is thoroughly researched and nicely written. It integrates information from a number of perspectives, including cognitive psychology and computer science, into an information science text. This work is timely, since images and other nontextual information are forming an ever larger part of the mass of information available to us. Indeed, in the long history of recorded information an our planet, images "were the only form of written communication for 25,000 out of the 30,000 years of human recorded experience ... we are, it appears, an the hinge of an important historical swing back towards what may be called the primacy of the image" (p. ix). The book will be valued for the richness of the information it gathers and for the intelligent discussion it offers. There are six chapters to the work: 1. Why images, and what do we know about them? 2. Cognitive foundations for image processing; 3. Organizing and providing access to images; 4. Machine processing of images; 5. Image attributes: the research framework; 6. Towards the future. In addition, there is an excellent bibliography of over forty pages, which is valuable because it provides so many good leads into the literatures of information science and of related disciplines that contribute to the discussions of image retrieval presented in the book. There are separate subject and author indexes. The author index is considerably longer than the subject index, an indication of how muck published literature is discussed in the text. Finally, a list of figures and a list of tables provide additional finding aids. The inclusion of discussions of issues from disciplines other than information science reflects the changing reality of information systems for managing picture collections. Throughout the time such collections have been built, there has never been much coordination of approaches, methods, or practices, even within the discipline of information science. Since the arrival about ten years ago of the World Wide Web, major changes have taken place in the way information is organised, stored, and retrieved. The new networked environment requires a great deal of coordination, common standards, and much more uniform practices than managers of collections of pictures have been used to in the past. Jörgensen's extensive research into the work accomplished by a number of contributing disciplines and her presentation of it in relation to the problem of managing collections of images indicates a deep understanding of the issues and a remarkable capacity to relate them to issues in information science. Accomplishing such a feat so successfully makes this work a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion of how collections need to be managed in the networked environment. The interdisciplinary nature of the problem has never before been presented so clearly, nor so thoroughly.