Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.07829362 = product of:
  0.15658724 = sum of:
    0.15658724 = sum of:
      0.10048859 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10048859 = score(doc=2686,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.49264002 = fieldWeight in 2686, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2686)
      0.05609865 = weight(_text_:22 in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05609865 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2686, 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=2686)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Metadata (structured information about an object or collection of objects) is increasingly important to libraries, archives, and museums. And although librarians are familiar with a number of issues that apply to creating and using metadata (e.g., authority control, controlled vocabularies, etc.), the world of metadata is nonetheless different than library cataloging, with its own set of challenges. Therefore, whether you are new to these concepts or quite experienced with classic cataloging, this short (20 pages) introductory paper on metadata can be helpful

Date

10. 9.2004 10:22:40

0.0397216 = product of:
  0.0794432 = sum of:
    0.0794432 = product of:
      0.1588864 = sum of:
        0.1588864 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1588864 = score(doc=4183,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.7789323 = fieldWeight in 4183, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4183)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A status of cataloging in Thailand shows a movement toward the use of information technology. The international standards for cataloging are being used and modified to effectively organize the information resources. An expanded scope of resources needed cataloging now covers cataloging the Web resources. The paper mentions Thailand's participation in the international working group on the use of metadata for libraries

0.02220505 = product of:
  0.0444101 = sum of:
    0.0444101 = product of:
      0.0888202 = sum of:
        0.0888202 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0888202 = score(doc=2005,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.43543637 = fieldWeight in 2005, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2005)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Cataloging and classification quarterly 55(2017) no.7/8, S.669-670 (Liz Woolcott).

0.021036994 = product of:
  0.042073987 = sum of:
    0.042073987 = product of:
      0.084147975 = sum of:
        0.084147975 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084147975 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.0133230295 = product of:
  0.026646059 = sum of:
    0.026646059 = product of:
      0.053292118 = sum of:
        0.053292118 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053292118 = score(doc=2321,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.26126182 = fieldWeight in 2321, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2321)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper provides a brief overview of the evolving descriptive metadata landscape, one phenomenon of which can be characterized as "cross-community" metadata as manifested in records that are the result of a combination of carefully considered data value and data content standards. he online catalog of the Morgan Library & Museum provides a real-life illustration of how diverse data content standards and vocabulary tools can be integrated within the classic data structure/technical interchange format of MARC21 to better describe unique, museum-type objects, and to provide better end-user access and understanding. The Morgan experience also shows the value of developing a collaborative model for metadata creation that combines the subject expertise of curators and scholars with the cataloging expertise and knowledge of standards possessed by librarians.

0.00888202 = product of:
  0.01776404 = sum of:
    0.01776404 = product of:
      0.03552808 = sum of:
        0.03552808 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03552808 = score(doc=1192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.17417455 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the June 2003 issue of D-Lib Magazine, Kenney et al. (2003) discuss a comparative study between Cornell's email reference staff and Google's Answers service. This interesting study provided insights on the potential impact of "computing and simple algorithms combined with human intelligence" for library reference services. As mentioned in the Kenney et al. article, Bill Arms (2000) had discussed the possibilities of automated digital libraries in an even earlier D-Lib article. Arms discusses not only automating reference services, but also another library function that seems to inspire lively debates about automation-metadata creation. While intended to illuminate, these debates sometimes generate more heat than light. In an effort to explore the potential for automating metadata generation, the Digital Knowledge Center (DKC) of the Sheridan Libraries at The Johns Hopkins University developed and tested an automated name authority control (ANAC) tool. ANAC represents a component of a digital workflow management system developed in connection with the digital Lester S. Levy Collection of Sheet Music. The evaluation of ANAC followed the spirit of the Kenney et al. study that was, as they stated, "more exploratory than scientific." These ANAC evaluation results are shared with the hope of fostering constructive dialogue and discussions about the potential for semi-automated techniques or frameworks for library functions and services such as metadata creation. The DKC's research agenda emphasizes the development of tools that combine automated processes and human intervention, with the overall goal of involving humans at higher levels of analysis and decision-making. Others have looked at issues regarding the automated generation of metadata. A session at the 2003 Joint Conference on Digital Libraries was devoted to automatic metadata creation, and a session at the 2004 conference addressed automated name disambiguation. Commercial vendors such as OCLC, Marcive, and LTI have long used automated techniques for matching names to Library of Congress authority records. We began developing ANAC as a component of a larger suite of open source tools to support workflow management for digital projects. This article describes the goals for the ANAC tool, provides an overview of the metadata records used for testing, describes the architecture for ANAC, and concludes with discussions of the methodology and evaluation of the experiment comparing human cataloging and ANAC-generated results.

0.00888202 = product of:
  0.01776404 = sum of:
    0.01776404 = product of:
      0.03552808 = sum of:
        0.03552808 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03552808 = score(doc=1208,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.17417455 = fieldWeight in 1208, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1208)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

For those of us still struggling with basic concepts regarding metadata in this brave new world in which cataloging means much more than MARC, an article like this is welcome indeed. In this 30.000-foot overview of the metadata landscape, broad issues such as modularity, namespaces, extensibility, refinement, and multilingualism are discussed. In addition, "practicalities" like application profiles, syntax and semantics, metadata registries, and automated generation of metadata are explained. Although this piece is not exhaustive of high-level metadata issues, it is nonetheless a useful description of some of the most important issues surrounding metadata creation and use. The rapid changes in the means of information access occasioned by the emergence of the World Wide Web have spawned an upheaval in the means of describing and managing information resources. Metadata is a primary tool in this work, and an important link in the value chain of knowledge economies. Yet there is much confusion about how metadata should be integrated into information systems. How is it to be created or extended? Who will manage it? How can it be used and exchanged? Whence comes its authority? Can different metadata standards be used together in a given environment? These and related questions motivate this paper. The authors hope to make explicit the strong foundations of agreement shared by two prominent metadata Initiatives: the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) and the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Learning Object Metadata (LOM) Working Group. This agreement emerged from a joint metadata taskforce meeting in Ottawa in August, 2001. By elucidating shared principles and practicalities of metadata, we hope to raise the level of understanding among our respective (and shared) constituents, so that all stakeholders can move forward more decisively to address their respective problems. The ideas in this paper are divided into two categories. Principles are those concepts judged to be common to all domains of metadata and which might inform the design of any metadata schema or application. Practicalities are the rules of thumb, constraints, and infrastructure issues that emerge from bringing theory into practice in the form of useful and sustainable systems.

0.008765414 = product of:
  0.017530829 = sum of:
    0.017530829 = product of:
      0.035061657 = sum of:
        0.035061657 = weight(_text_:22 in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035061657 = score(doc=4550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4550, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4550)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10.11.2018 16:27:22

0.007850671 = product of:
  0.015701342 = sum of:
    0.015701342 = product of:
      0.031402685 = sum of:
        0.031402685 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031402685 = score(doc=1216,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.15395 = fieldWeight in 1216, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1216)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reality is messy. Individuals perceive or define objects differently. Objects may change over time, morphing into new versions of their former selves or into things altogether different. A book can give rise to a translation, derivation, or edition, and these resulting objects are related in complex ways to each other and to the people and contexts in which they were created or transformed. Providing a normalized view of such a messy reality is a precondition for managing information. From the first library catalogs, through Melvil Dewey's Decimal Classification system in the nineteenth century, to today's MARC encoding of AACR2 cataloging rules, libraries have epitomized the process of what David Levy calls "order making", whereby catalogers impose a veneer of regularity on the natural disorder of the artifacts they encounter. The pre-digital library within which the Catalog and its standards evolved was relatively self-contained and controlled. Creating and maintaining catalog records was, and still is, the task of professionals. Today's Web, in contrast, has brought together a diversity of information management communities, with a variety of order-making standards, into what Stuart Weibel has called the Internet Commons. The sheer scale of this context has motivated a search for new ways to describe and index information. Second-generation search engines such as Google can yield astonishingly good search results, while tools such as ResearchIndex for automatic citation indexing and techniques for inferring "Web communities" from constellations of hyperlinks promise even better methods for focusing queries on information from authoritative sources. Such "automated digital libraries," according to Bill Arms, promise to radically reduce the cost of managing information. Alongside the development of such automated methods, there is increasing interest in metadata as a means of imposing pre-defined order on Web content. While the size and changeability of the Web makes professional cataloging impractical, a minimal amount of information ordering, such as that represented by the Dublin Core (DC), may vastly improve the quality of an automatic index at low cost; indeed, recent work suggests that some types of simple description may be generated with little or no human intervention.

0.0070123314 = product of:
  0.014024663 = sum of:
    0.014024663 = product of:
      0.028049326 = sum of:
        0.028049326 = weight(_text_:22 in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028049326 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

26.12.2011 14:01:22