Proffitt, M.: Pulling it all together : use of METS in RLG cultural materials service (2004)
0.15
0.15102102 = product of:
0.30204204 = sum of:
0.23110585 = weight(_text_:objects in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.23110585 = score(doc=767,freq=4.0), product of:
0.34784988 = queryWeight, product of:
5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
0.06544595 = queryNorm
0.6643839 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
0.07093619 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07093619 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22918057 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.06544595 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 767, 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=767)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- RLG has used METS for a particular application, that is as a wrapper for structural metadata. When RLG cultural materials was launched, there was no single way to deal with "complex digital objects". METS provides a standard means of encoding metadata regarding the digital objects represented in RCM, and METS has now been fully integrated into the workflow for this service.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.65-68
