Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0019955188 = product of:
  0.011973113 = sum of:
    0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 1165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011973113 = score(doc=1165,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 1165, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1165)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

University of Victoria Libraries has implemented faceted vocabularies, particularly FAST, in its digital collections platform (Vault). The process involved migrating a variety of standardized (pre-coordinated Library of Congress subject headings) and non-standardized metadata to conform to a URI-centric metadata application profile. The authors argue that faceted vocabularies and FAST have helped to create a robust and intuitive user navigation in the platform and allowed for an efficient and straightforward metadata creation process. Maintaining FAST as linked data within Vault has required putting in place some technical processes to keep URIs and textual labels up to date and solutions (FAST Updater) have been locally developed.

Footnote

Beitrag in Themenheft: Implementation of Faceted Vocabularies.

0.0018813931 = product of:
  0.011288359 = sum of:
    0.011288359 = weight(_text_:in in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011288359 = score(doc=1881,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.19010136 = fieldWeight in 1881, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1881)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Linked data has dominated the recent discourse in cataloging and metadata. The daily work of the cataloger, however, remains mostly unchanged. This tension is investigated, with a view to reconciling cataloging practice with a linked data future. Aspects of linked data are outlined and a shift in focus in cataloging practice is recommended. Authorities, controlled access points, vocabularies, differentiated values, and local data should be emphasized, and focus should shift from free text fields, keystrokes, punctuation, and aspects of local practice. Through these recommendations, it is argued that catalogers can help prepare the way for the emerging information environment. There exists a tension between the data produced in library catalogues presently and the data requirements of an uncertain future. While Linked Data dominates the theoretical and experimental discussion of the next generation of information discovery, the daily work of the cataloguer remains mostly unchanged. The practice of following standards is essential for cataloguing data, and Resource Description and Access (RDA) attempts to bridge the gap between legacy data and a future where Linked Data is increasingly important. But in this transitional environment, where cataloguers continue to create MARC records in traditional closed library databases, can cataloguers do something more to prepare for the future to make their data smarter and richer? While Linked Data deals with large aggregations of data, how can the daily work of the cataloguer at present be leveraged to positively impact future aggregate data tasks and requirements? In short, what can the present-day cataloguer do to "prepare the way" for future data needs? To investigate, this paper will discuss several key questions. What does the future, particularly Linked Data, require of cataloguing data? What can cataloguers do to "prepare the way" for this future as they produce granular data on a daily basis? To what extent do current standards, including RDA, help to meet future requirements? Is following standards all that is required, or are there forward-facing data principles and practices that should otherwise inform practice? And, finally, to what extent is creating good data a neutral process independent of specific current or future technologies? The authors will examine these issues in reference to existing data quality models proposed within and outside of the cataloguing literature. Practical suggestions for current cataloguing production practice will be made based on the future needs outlined.

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: Reshaping the Library Catalog: Selected Papers from the International Conference FSR2014 (Rome, February 27-28, 2014).

0.001821651 = product of:
  0.010929906 = sum of:
    0.010929906 = weight(_text_:in in 416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010929906 = score(doc=416,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 416, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=416)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In many digital libraries, visual objects are published and metadata attached to allow for search and retrieval. For visual objects in which people appear, names are often added to the metadata so that digital library users can search for people appearing in these objects. Although this seems straightforward, there are ethical implications of adding names to metadata for visual objects. This paper explores the impact of this action and discusses relevant ethical issues it raises. It asserts that an individual's right to privacy and control over personal information must be weighed against the benefit of the object to society and the professional ethic to authentically represent a resource through its metadata. Context and an understanding of the major ethical issues will inform the practical decision of whether to keep objects online and add metadata to them, but items should generally be published unless there are clear ethical violations or a community relationship is in jeopardy.

Content

Beitrag aus einem Themenheft zu den Proceedings of the 2nd Milwaukee Conference on Ethics in Information Organization, June 15-16, 2012, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Hope A. Olson, Conference Chair. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_5_c.pdf.

0.0015457221 = product of:
  0.009274333 = sum of:
    0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 1150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009274333 = score(doc=1150,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 1150, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1150)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This is an overview of the development of FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) from its inception in the late 1990s, through its development and implementation to the work being undertaken by OCLC and the FAST Policy and Outreach Committee (FPOC) to develop and promote FAST. FPOC members explain how FAST is used by institutions in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. They cover their experience of implementing FAST and the benefits they have derived. The final section considers the value of FAST as a faceted vocabulary and the potential for future development and linked data.

Footnote

Beitrag in Themenheft: Implementation of Faceted Vocabularies.