Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.008718766 = product of:
  0.052312598 = sum of:
    0.052312598 = weight(_text_:22 in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052312598 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1690115 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3376, 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=3376)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

31. 7.2010 16:58:22

0.008005621 = product of:
  0.04803372 = sum of:
    0.04803372 = weight(_text_:problem in 543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04803372 = score(doc=543,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20485485 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 543, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=543)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

One of the main features of classic libraries is metadata, which also is the key aspect of the Semantic Web. Librarians in the process of resources annotation use different kinds of Knowledge Organization Systems; KOS range from controlled vocabularies to classifications and categories (e.g., taxonomies) and to relationship lists (e.g., thesauri). The diversity of controlled vocabularies, used by various libraries and organizations, became a bottleneck for efficient information exchange between different entities. Even though a simple one-to-one mapping could be established, based on the similarities between names of concepts, we cannot derive information about the hierarchy between concepts from two different KOS. One of the solutions to this problem is to create an algorithm based on data delivered by large community of users using many classification schemata at once. The rationale behind it is that similar resources can be described by equivalent concepts taken from different taxonomies. The more annotations are collected, the more precise the result of this crosswalk will be.

0.008005621 = product of:
  0.04803372 = sum of:
    0.04803372 = weight(_text_:problem in 3381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04803372 = score(doc=3381,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20485485 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 3381, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3381)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The idea of bibliographic ontology comes from actual needs rather than today's common push to use the technology simply because it exists. The librarian community has always been enthusiastic to technical novelties to improve their work and make it more efficient. It is no different today. Managing bibliographic resources such as books was always a serious task. The goals are simple: to allow those who need access to the information quickly and surely. Unfortunately, these simple goals become more and more difficult to accomplish in the environment of dynamically growing number of resources and users. The problem of information overload has become one of the major concerns in the Internet era. The publishing model of the Internet allows anyone, anywhere and anytime to publish their work and to make it publicly available. It is in both the author's and the reader's interest to make access to such resources as straightforward as possible. What could be accomplished by paper cards in nineteenth century libraries is not enough today. The most common bibliographic resource - a book - may seem simple to manage. We may state the author, title and perhaps a short summary and hope someone will notice it. But what about finding other books from the same field of knowledge? What about checking author's professional background? Or technical article reviews? What about finding aerial photos of San Francisco Bay showing Golden Gate Bridge construction?

0.0065390747 = product of:
  0.03923445 = sum of:
    0.03923445 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03923445 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1690115 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3387, 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=3387)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

1. 8.2010 12:35:22