Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.008591056 = product of:
  0.034364223 = sum of:
    0.019452421 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019452421 = score(doc=3150,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 3150, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3150)
    0.014911801 = product of:
      0.029823601 = sum of:
        0.029823601 = weight(_text_:system in 3150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029823601 = score(doc=3150,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 3150, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3150)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records (FRSAR) Working Group was formed in 2005 as the third IFLA working group of the FRBR family to address subject authority data issues and to investigate the direct and indirect uses of subject authority data by a wide range of users. This paper introduces the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD), the model developed by the FRSAR Working Group, and discusses it in the context of other related conceptual models defined in the specifications during recent years, including the British Standard BS8723-5: Structured vocabularies for information retrieval - Guide Part 5: Exchange formats and protocols for interoperability, W3C's SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference, and OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. These models enable the consideration of the functions of subject authority data and concept schemes at a higher level that is independent of any implementation, system, or specific context, while allowing us to focus on the semantics, structures, and interoperability of subject authority data.

0.003248495 = product of:
  0.02598796 = sum of:
    0.02598796 = product of:
      0.05197592 = sum of:
        0.05197592 = weight(_text_:etc in 1176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05197592 = score(doc=1176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17370372 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.2992217 = fieldWeight in 1176, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The rapid growth of Internet resources and digital collections has been accompanied by a proliferation of metadata schemas, each of which has been designed based on the requirements of particular user communities, intended users, types of materials, subject domains, project needs, etc. Problems arise when building large digital libraries or repositories with metadata records that were prepared according to diverse schemas. This article (published in two parts) contains an analysis of the methods that have been used to achieve or improve interoperability among metadata schemas and applications, for the purposes of facilitating conversion and exchange of metadata and enabling cross-domain metadata harvesting and federated searches. From a methodological point of view, implementing interoperability may be considered at different levels of operation: schema level, record level, and repository level. Part I of the article intends to explain possible situations in which metadata schemas may be created or implemented, whether in individual projects or in integrated repositories. It also discusses approaches used at the schema level. Part II of the article will discuss metadata interoperability efforts at the record and repository levels.