Renear, A.H.; Wickett, K.M.; Urban, R.J.; Dubin, D.; Shreeves, S.L.: Collection/item metadata relationships (2008)
0.14
0.14377543 = sum of:
0.038515985 = product of:
0.11554795 = sum of:
0.11554795 = weight(_text_:objects in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11554795 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
0.3279419 = queryWeight, product of:
5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
0.061700378 = queryNorm
0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.105259456 = sum of:
0.05510216 = weight(_text_:work in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05510216 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22646447 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
0.061700378 = queryNorm
0.2433148 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
0.050157297 = weight(_text_:22 in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050157297 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21606421 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.061700378 = 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)
- 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
