Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.044178404 = product of:
  0.1325352 = sum of:
    0.052265707 = weight(_text_:web in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052265707 = score(doc=731,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
    0.0802695 = weight(_text_:computer in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0802695 = score(doc=731,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.4945153 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This book offers a comprehensive guide to the world of metadata, from its origins in the ancient cities of the Middle East, to the Semantic Web of today. The author takes us on a journey through the centuries-old history of metadata up to the modern world of crowdsourcing and Google, showing how metadata works and what it is made of. The author explores how it has been used ideologically and how it can never be objective. He argues how central it is to human cultures and the way they develop. Metadata: Shaping Knowledge from Antiquity to the Semantic Web is for all readers with an interest in how we humans organize our knowledge and why this is important. It is suitable for those new to the subject as well as those know its basics. It also makes an excellent introduction for students of information science and librarianship.

LCSH

Computer science
Computer applications in arts and humanities
Popular computer science

Subject

Computer science
Computer applications in arts and humanities
Popular computer science

Theme

Semantic Web

0.039725944 = product of:
  0.11917783 = sum of:
    0.067437425 = weight(_text_:wide in 2378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067437425 = score(doc=2378,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 2378, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2378)
    0.05174041 = weight(_text_:web in 2378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05174041 = score(doc=2378,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 2378, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2378)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

In the early 20th century, Paul Otlet carved out a role for bibliography and documentation as a force for positive social change. While his ideals appeared to be utopian to many of his contemporaries, his activism and vision foreshadowed the potential of the World Wide Web. This paper discusses the role that KO professionals could play in enhancing the positive social impact of the web of knowledge, and how our roles are shifting from the more passive role of descriptive cataloguers, to proactive designers of positive and productive knowledge environments.

0.0043693185 = product of:
  0.02621591 = sum of:
    0.02621591 = weight(_text_:computer in 3859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02621591 = score(doc=3859,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.16150802 = fieldWeight in 3859, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3859)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Modelling bibliographical entities is a prominent activity within knowledge organization today. Current models of bibliographic entities, such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographical Records (FRBR) and the Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME), take inspiration from data - modelling methods developed by computer scientists from the mid - 1970s on. Thus, it would seem that the modelling of bibliographic entities is an activity of very recent vintage. However, it is possible to find examples of bibliographical models from earlier periods of knowledge organization. The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to one such model, outlined by the early 20th - century British classification theorist E. Wyndham Hulme in his essay on "Principles of Book Classification" (1911 - 1912). There, Hulme set forth a classification of various attributes by which books can conceivably be classified. These he first divided into accidental and inseparable attributes. Accidental attributes were subdivided into edition - level and copy - level attributes and inseparable attitudes, into physical and non - physical attributes. Comparison of Hulme's classification of attributes with those of FRBR and BIBFRAME 2.0 reveals that the different classes of attributes in Hulme's classification correspond to groups of attributes associated with different bibliographical entities in those models. These later models assume the existence of different bibliographic entities in an abstraction hierarchy among which attributes are distributed, whereas Hulme posited only a single entity - the book - , whose various aspects he clustered into different classes of attributes. Thus, Hulme's model offers an interesting alternative to current assumptions about how to conceptualize the relationship between attributes and entities in the bibliographical universe.

0.0043693185 = product of:
  0.02621591 = sum of:
    0.02621591 = weight(_text_:computer in 4141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02621591 = score(doc=4141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.16150802 = fieldWeight in 4141, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4141)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Modelling bibliographical entities is a prominent activity within knowledge organization today. Current models of bibliographic entities, such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and the Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME), take inspiration from data-modelling methods developed by computer scientists from the mid-1970s on. Thus, it would seem that the modelling of bibliographic entities is an activity of very recent vintage. However, it is possible to find examples of bibliographical models from earlier periods of knowledge organization. The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to one such model, outlined by the early twentiethcentury British classification theorist E. Wyndham Hulme in his essay on "Principles of Book Classification" (1911-1912). There, Hulme set forth a classification of various attributes by which books can be classified. These he first divided into "accidental" and "inseparable" attributes. Accidental attributes were subdivided into edition-level and copy-level attributes and inseparable attitudes, into "physical" and "non-physical" attributes. Comparison of Hulme's classification of attributes with those of FRBR and BIBFRAME 2.0 reveals that the different classes of attributes in Hulme's classification correspond to groups of attributes associated with different bibliographical entities in those models. These later models assume the existence of different bibliographic entities in an abstract hierarchy among which attributes are distributed, whereas Hulme posited only a single entity-the book-whose various aspects he clustered into different classes of attributes. Thus, Hulme's model offers an interesting alternative to current assumptions about how to conceptualize the relationship between attributes and entities in the bibliographical universe.

0.004355476 = product of:
  0.026132854 = sum of:
    0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 4140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026132854 = score(doc=4140,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4140, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4140)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Among knowledge organizing institutions, libraries have a rich history of depicting persons as information. From personal authority records to descriptions of oral history interviews, libraries have amassed data on persons from a variety of perspectives. Within this set of traditions, however, subtle but significant shifts in practice and conception have occurred, particularly concerning how persons are interpreted and depicted and how such depictions are justified. To explore these issues, we looked to four specific library traditions: authority work, community information, oral history, and "human library" events. Within these traditions, we identified six standards guiding the representation of persons. We performed a content analysis of these standards, along with a semantic alignment and comparison of descriptive elements. From this analysis, we reconstructed an historical timeline and a set of narratives capturing changing definitions of people, a shifting focus from names to identities, and an increasing acceptance of varied sources of justification. Findings show not only a number of critical variations within library practices but also practical and ethical issues concerning the responsibility of libraries as well as the redistribution and reuse of library data on the web.