Search (85 results, page 2 of 5)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Dunsire, G.; Willer, M.: Initiatives to make standard library metadata models and structures available to the Semantic Web (2010) 0.01 
    0.0056086686 = product of:
  0.039260678 = sum of:
    0.03118895 = weight(_text_:web in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03118895 = score(doc=3965,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.32250395 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=3965,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    This paper describes recent initiatives to make standard library metadata models and structures available to the Semantic Web, including IFLA standards such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), and International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) along with the infrastructure that supports them. The FRBR Review Group is currently developing representations of FRAD and the entityrelationship model of FRBR in resource description framework (RDF) applications, using a combination of RDF, RDF Schema (RDFS), Simple Knowledge Organisation System (SKOS) and Web Ontology Language (OWL), cross-relating both models where appropriate. The ISBD/XML Task Group is investigating the representation of ISBD in RDF. The IFLA Namespaces project is developing an administrative and technical infrastructure to support such initiatives and encourage uptake of standards by other agencies. The paper describes similar initiatives with related external standards such as RDA - resource description and access, REICAT (the new Italian cataloguing rules) and CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM). The DCMI RDA Task Group is working with the Joint Steering Committee for RDA to develop Semantic Web representations of RDA structural elements, which are aligned with FRBR and FRAD, and controlled metadata content vocabularies. REICAT is also based on FRBR, and an object-oriented version of FRBR has been integrated with CRM, which itself has an RDF representation. CRM was initially based on the metadata needs of the museum community, and is now seeking extension to the archives community with the eventual aim of developing a model common to the main cultural information domains of archives, libraries and museums. The Vocabulary Mapping Framework (VMF) project has developed a Semantic Web tool to automatically generate mappings between metadata models from the information communities, including publishers. The tool is based on several standards, including CRM, FRAD, FRBR, MARC21 and RDA.
    Content
    Vortrag im Rahmen der Session 93. Cataloguing der WORLD LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CONGRESS: 76TH IFLA GENERAL CONFERENCE AND ASSEMBLY, 10-15 August 2010, Gothenburg, Sweden - 149. Information Technology, Cataloguing, Classification and Indexing with Knowledge Management
  2. Pomerantz, J.: Metadata (2015) 0.00 
    0.004604369 = product of:
  0.032230582 = sum of:
    0.024158856 = weight(_text_:web in 3800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024158856 = score(doc=3800,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.24981049 = fieldWeight in 3800, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3800)
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 3800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=3800,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3800, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3800)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    When "metadata" became breaking news, appearing in stories about surveillance by the National Security Agency, many members of the public encountered this once-obscure term from information science for the first time. Should people be reassured that the NSA was "only" collecting metadata about phone calls -- information about the caller, the recipient, the time, the duration, the location -- and not recordings of the conversations themselves? Or does phone call metadata reveal more than it seems? In this book, Jeffrey Pomerantz offers an accessible and concise introduction to metadata. In the era of ubiquitous computing, metadata has become infrastructural, like the electrical grid or the highway system. We interact with it or generate it every day. It is not, Pomerantz tell us, just "data about data." It is a means by which the complexity of an object is represented in a simpler form. For example, the title, the author, and the cover art are metadata about a book. When metadata does its job well, it fades into the background; everyone (except perhaps the NSA) takes it for granted. Pomerantz explains what metadata is, and why it exists. He distinguishes among different types of metadata -- descriptive, administrative, structural, preservation, and use -- and examines different users and uses of each type. He discusses the technologies that make modern metadata possible, and he speculates about metadata's future. By the end of the book, readers will see metadata everywhere. Because, Pomerantz warns us, it's metadata's world, and we are just living in it.
    Content
    Introduction -- Definitions -- Descriptive metadata -- Administrative metadata -- Use metadata -- Enabling technologies for metadata -- The Semantic Web -- The future of metadata.
    LCSH
    Metadata , Information organization
    RSWK
    Metadaten / Semantic Web / Metadatenmodell
    Subject
    Metadaten / Semantic Web / Metadatenmodell
    Metadata , Information organization
  3. Johansson, S.; Golub, K.: LibraryThing for libraries : how tag moderation and size limitations affect tag clouds (2019) 0.00 
    0.0045416425 = product of:
  0.031791497 = sum of:
    0.02465703 = weight(_text_:web in 5398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02465703 = score(doc=5398,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 5398, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5398)
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 5398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=5398,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5398, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5398)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    The aim of this study is to analyse differences between tags on LibraryThing's web page and tag clouds in their "Library-Thing for Libraries" service, and assess if, and how, the Library-Thing tag moderation and limitations to the size of the tag cloud in the library catalogue affect the description of the information resource. An e-mail survey was conducted with personnel at LibraryThing, and the results were compared against tags for twenty different fiction books, collected from two different library catalogues with disparate tag cloud sizes, and Library-Thing's web page. The data were analysed using a modified version of Golder and Huberman's tag categories (2006). The results show that while LibraryThing claims to only remove the inherently personal tags, several other types of tags are found to have been discarded as well. Occasionally a certain type of tag is in-cluded in one book, and excluded in another. The comparison between the two tag cloud sizes suggests that the larger tag clouds provide a more pronounced picture regarding the contents of the book but at the cost of an increase in the number of tags with synonymous or redundant information.
  4. Roy, W.; Gray, C.: Preparing existing metadata for repository batch import : a recipe for a fickle food (2018) 0.00 
    0.004478364 = product of:
  0.031348545 = sum of:
    0.02465703 = weight(_text_:web in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02465703 = score(doc=4550,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 4550, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4550)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=4550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    In 2016, the University of Waterloo began offering a mediated copyright review and deposit service to support the growth of our institutional repository UWSpace. This resulted in the need to batch import large lists of published works into the institutional repository quickly and accurately. A range of methods have been proposed for harvesting publications metadata en masse, but many technological solutions can easily become detached from a workflow that is both reproducible for support staff and applicable to a range of situations. Many repositories offer the capacity for batch upload via CSV, so our method provides a template Python script that leverages the Habanero library for populating CSV files with existing metadata retrieved from the CrossRef API. In our case, we have combined this with useful metadata contained in a TSV file downloaded from Web of Science in order to enrich our metadata as well. The appeal of this 'low-maintenance' method is that it provides more robust options for gathering metadata semi-automatically, and only requires the user's ability to access Web of Science and the Python program, while still remaining flexible enough for local customizations.
    Date
    10.11.2018 16:27:22
  5. Wartburg, K. von; Sibille, C.; Aliverti, C.: Metadata collaboration between the Swiss National Library and research institutions in the field of Swiss historiography (2019) 0.00 
    0.0041360003 = product of:
  0.028952 = sum of:
    0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020922182 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)
    0.008029819 = product of:
      0.024089456 = sum of:
        0.024089456 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024089456 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    This article presents examples of metadata collaborations between the Swiss National Library (NL) and research institutions in the field of Swiss historiography. The NL publishes the Bibliography on Swiss History (BSH). In order to meet the demands of its research community, the NL has improved the accessibility and interoperability of the BSH database. Moreover, the BSH takes part in metadata projects such as Metagrid, a web service linking different historical databases. Other metadata collaborations with partners in the historical field such as the Law Sources Foundation (LSF) will position the BSH as an indispensable literature hub for publications on Swiss history.
    Date
    30. 5.2019 19:22:49
  6. Social tagging in a linked data environment. Edited by Diane Rasmussen Pennington and Louise F. Spiteri. London, UK: Facet Publishing, 2018. 240 pp. £74.95 (paperback). (ISBN 9781783303380) (2019) 0.00 
    0.0041022478 = product of:
  0.028715733 = sum of:
    0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017435152 = score(doc=101,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 101, 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=101)
    0.011280581 = weight(_text_:information in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011280581 = score(doc=101,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Social tagging, hashtags, and geotags are used across a variety of platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, WordPress, Instagram) in different countries and cultures. This book, representing researchers and practitioners across different information professions, explores how social tags can link content across a variety of environments. Most studies of social tagging have tended to focus on applications like library catalogs, blogs, and social bookmarking sites. This book, in setting out a theoretical background and the use of a series of case studies, explores the role of hashtags as a form of linked data?without the complex implementation of RDF and other Semantic Web technologies.
    LCSH
    Libraries and museums / Electronic information resources
    Electronic information resources
    Subject
    Libraries and museums / Electronic information resources
    Electronic information resources
  7. Strobel, S.; Marín-Arraiza, P.: Metadata for scientific audiovisual media : current practices and perspectives of the TIB / AV-portal (2015) 0.00 
    0.0037468998 = product of:
  0.026228298 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 3667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=3667,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3667, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3667)
    0.021183468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021183468 = score(doc=3667,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 3667, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3667)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Descriptive metadata play a key role in finding relevant search results in large amounts of unstructured data. However, current scientific audiovisual media are provided with little metadata, which makes them hard to find, let alone individual sequences. In this paper, the TIB / AV-Portal is presented as a use case where methods concerning the automatic generation of metadata, a semantic search and cross-lingual retrieval (German/English) have already been applied. These methods result in a better discoverability of the scientific audiovisual media hosted in the portal. Text, speech, and image content of the video are automatically indexed by specialised GND (Gemeinsame Normdatei) subject headings. A semantic search is established based on properties of the GND ontology. The cross-lingual retrieval uses English 'translations' that were derived by an ontology mapping (DBpedia i. a.). Further ways of increasing the discoverability and reuse of the metadata are publishing them as Linked Open Data and interlinking them with other data sets.
    Series
    Communications in computer and information science; 544
  8. Kleeck, D. Van; Nakano, H.; Langford, G.; Shelton, T.; Lundgren, J.; O'Dell, A.J.: Managing bibliographic data quality for electronic resources (2017) 0.00 
    0.0036609212 = product of:
  0.051252894 = sum of:
    0.051252894 = weight(_text_:elektronische in 5160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051252894 = score(doc=5160,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14013545 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.36573824 = fieldWeight in 5160, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5160)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Form
    Elektronische Dokumente
  9. Tosaka, Y.; Park, J.-r.: RDA: Resource description & access : a survey of the current state of the art (2013) 0.00 
    0.0035812336 = product of:
  0.025068633 = sum of:
    0.010089659 = weight(_text_:information in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010089659 = score(doc=677,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
    0.014978974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014978974 = score(doc=677,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Resource Description & Access (RDA) is intended to provide a flexible and extensible framework that can accommodate all types of content and media within rapidly evolving digital environments while also maintaining compatibility with the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2). The cataloging community is grappling with practical issues in navigating the transition from AACR2 to RDA; there is a definite need to evaluate major subject areas and broader themes in information organization under the new RDA paradigm. This article aims to accomplish this task through a thorough and critical review of the emerging RDA literature published from 2005 to 2011. The review mostly concerns key areas of difference between RDA and AACR2, the relationship of the new cataloging code to metadata standards, the impact on encoding standards such as Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), end user considerations, and practitioners' views on RDA implementation and training. Future research will require more in-depth studies of RDA's expected benefits and the manner in which the new cataloging code will improve resource retrieval and bibliographic control for users and catalogers alike over AACR2. The question as to how the cataloging community can best move forward to the post-AACR2/MARC environment must be addressed carefully so as to chart the future of bibliographic control in the evolving environment of information production, management, and use.
    Series
    Advances in information science
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.651-662
  10. Hajra, A. et al.: Enriching scientific publications from LOD repositories through word embeddings approach (2016) 0.00 
    0.003353242 = product of:
  0.023472693 = sum of:
    0.010089659 = weight(_text_:information in 3281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010089659 = score(doc=3281,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3281, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3281)
    0.013383033 = product of:
      0.040149096 = sum of:
        0.040149096 = weight(_text_:22 in 3281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040149096 = score(doc=3281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3281, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3281)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Series
    Communications in computer and information science; 672
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
  11. Mora-Mcginity, M. et al.: MusicWeb: music discovery with open linked semantic metadata (2016) 0.00 
    0.003353242 = product of:
  0.023472693 = sum of:
    0.010089659 = weight(_text_:information in 3282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010089659 = score(doc=3282,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3282, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3282)
    0.013383033 = product of:
      0.040149096 = sum of:
        0.040149096 = weight(_text_:22 in 3282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040149096 = score(doc=3282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3282, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3282)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Series
    Communications in computer and information science; 672
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
  12. Syn, S.Y.; Spring, M.B.: Finding subject terms for classificatory metadata from user-generated social tags (2013) 0.00 
    0.003211426 = product of:
  0.022479981 = sum of:
    0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017435152 = score(doc=745,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 745, 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=745)
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=745,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 745, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=745)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    With the increasing popularity of social tagging systems, the potential for using social tags as a source of metadata is being explored. Social tagging systems can simplify the involvement of a large number of users and improve the metadata-generation process. Current research is exploring social tagging systems as a mechanism to allow nonprofessional catalogers to participate in metadata generation. Because social tags are not from controlled vocabularies, there are issues that have to be addressed in finding quality terms to represent the content of a resource. This research explores ways to obtain a set of tags representing the resource from the tags provided by users. Two metrics are introduced. Annotation Dominance (AD) is a measure of the extent to which a tag term is agreed to by users. Cross Resources Annotation Discrimination (CRAD) is a measure of a tag's potential to classify a collection. It is designed to remove tags that are used too broadly or narrowly. Using the proposed measurements, the research selects important tags (meta-terms) and removes meaningless ones (tag noise) from the tags provided by users. To evaluate the proposed approach to find classificatory metadata candidates, we rely on expert users' relevance judgments comparing suggested tag terms and expert metadata terms. The results suggest that processing of user tags using the two measurements successfully identifies the terms that represent the topic categories of web resource content. The suggested tag terms can be further examined in various usages as semantic metadata for the resources.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.5, S.964-980
  13. Alves dos Santos, E.; Mucheroni, M.L.: VIAF and OpenCitations : cooperative work as a strategy for information organization in the linked data era (2018) 0.00 
    0.0031602248 = product of:
  0.022121573 = sum of:
    0.011415146 = weight(_text_:information in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011415146 = score(doc=4826,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 4826, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4826)
    0.010706427 = product of:
      0.032119278 = sum of:
        0.032119278 = weight(_text_:22 in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032119278 = score(doc=4826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4826, 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=4826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Date
    18. 1.2019 19:13:22
    Source
    Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira
  14. Liu, X.; Qin, J.: ¬An interactive metadata model for structural, descriptive, and referential representation of scholarly output (2014) 0.00 
    0.0031590632 = product of:
  0.02211344 = sum of:
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 1253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=1253,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1253, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1253)
    0.014978974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014978974 = score(doc=1253,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1253, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1253)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    The scientific metadata model proposed in this article encompasses both classical descriptive metadata such as those defined in the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (DC) and the innovative structural and referential metadata properties that go beyond the classical model. Structural metadata capture the structural vocabulary in research publications; referential metadata include not only citations but also data about other types of scholarly output that is based on or related to the same publication. The article describes the structural, descriptive, and referential (SDR) elements of the metadata model and explains the underlying assumptions and justifications for each major component in the model. ScholarWiki, an experimental system developed as a proof of concept, was built over the wiki platform to allow user interaction with the metadata and the editing, deleting, and adding of metadata. By allowing and encouraging scholars (both as authors and as users) to participate in the knowledge and metadata editing and enhancing process, the larger community will benefit from more accurate and effective information retrieval. The ScholarWiki system utilizes machine-learning techniques that can automatically produce self-enhanced metadata by learning from the structural metadata that scholars contribute, which will add intelligence to enhance and update automatically the publication of metadata Wiki pages.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.5, S.964-983
  15. White, M.: ¬The value of taxonomies, thesauri and metadata in enterprise search (2016) 0.00 
    0.0031590632 = product of:
  0.02211344 = sum of:
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 2964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=2964,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2964, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2964)
    0.014978974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014978974 = score(doc=2964,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2964, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2964)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Although the technical, mathematical and linguistic principles of search date back to the early 1960s and enterprise search applications have been commercially available since the 1980s; it is only since the launch of Microsoft SharePoint 2010 and the integration of the Apache Lucene and Solr projects in 2010 that there has been a wider adoption of enterprise search applications. Surveys carried out over the last five years indicate that although enterprises accept that search applications are essential in locating information, there has not been any significant investment in search teams to support these applications. Where taxonomies, thesauri and metadata have been used to improve the search user interface and enhance the search experience, the indications are that levels of search satisfaction are significantly higher. The challenges faced by search managers in developing and maintaining these tools include a lack of published research on the use of these tools and difficulty in recruiting search team members with the requisite skills and experience. There would seem to be an important and immediate opportunity to bring together the research, knowledge organization and enterprise search communities to explore how good practice in the use of taxonomies, thesauri and metadata in enterprise search can be established, enhanced and promoted.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Special issue: The Great Debate: "This House Believes that the Traditional Thesaurus has no Place in Modern Information Retrieval." [19 February 2015, 14:00-17:30 preceded by ISKO UK AGM and followed by networking, wine and nibbles; vgl.: http://www.iskouk.org/content/great-debate].
  16. Alemu, G.: ¬A theory of metadata enriching and filtering (2016) 0.00 
    0.0031456926 = product of:
  0.022019848 = sum of:
    0.013948122 = weight(_text_:web in 5068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013948122 = score(doc=5068,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 5068, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5068)
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 5068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=5068,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5068, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5068)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    This paper presents a new theory of metadata enriching and filtering. The theory emerged from a rigorous grounded theory data analysis of 57 in-depth interviews with metadata experts, library and information science researchers, librarians as well as academic library users (G. Alemu, A Theory of Digital Library Metadata: The Emergence of Enriching and Filtering, University of Portsmouth PhD thesis, Portsmouth, 2014). Partly due to the novelty of Web 2.0 approaches and mainly due to the absence of foundational theories to underpin socially constructed metadata approaches, this research adapted a social constructivist philosophical approach and a constructivist grounded theory method (K.?Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis, SAGE Publications, London, 2006). The theory espouses the importance of enriching information objects with descriptions pertaining to the about-ness of information objects. Such richness and diversity of descriptions, it is argued, could chiefly be achieved by involving users in the metadata creation process. The theory includes four overarching metadata principles - metadata enriching, linking, openness and filtering. The theory proposes a mixed metadata approach where metadata experts provide the requisite basic descriptive metadata, structure and interoperability (a priori metadata) while users continually enrich it with their own interpretations (post-hoc metadata). Enriched metadata is inter- and cross-linked (the principle of linking), made openly accessible (the principle of openness) and presented (the principle of filtering) according to user needs. It is argued that enriched, interlinked and open metadata effectively rises and scales to the challenges presented by the growing digital collections and changing user expectations. This metadata approach allows users to pro-actively engage in co-creating metadata, hence enhancing the findability, discoverability and subsequent usage of information resources. This paper concludes by indicating the current challenges and opportunities to implement the theory of metadata enriching and filtering.
  17. Miller, S.: Introduction to ontology concepts and terminology : DC-2013 Tutorial, September 2, 2013. (2013) 0.00 
    0.0028179463 = product of:
  0.039451245 = sum of:
    0.039451245 = weight(_text_:web in 1075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039451245 = score(doc=1075,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 1075, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1075)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Content
    Tutorial topics and outline 1. Tutorial Background Overview The Semantic Web, Linked Data, and the Resource Description Framework 2. Ontology Basics and RDFS Tutorial Semantic modeling, domain ontologies, and RDF Vocabulary Description Language (RDFS) concepts and terminology Examples: domain ontologies, models, and schemas Exercises 3. OWL Overview Tutorial Web Ontology Language (OWL): selected concepts and terminology Exercises
  18. Koch, G.; Koch, W.: Aggregation and management of metadata in the context of Europeana (2017) 0.00 
    0.0027592706 = product of:
  0.038629785 = sum of:
    0.038629785 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 3910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038629785 = score(doc=3910,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.31752092 = fieldWeight in 3910, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3910)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    Mit dem In-Beziehung-Setzen und Verlinken von Daten im Internet wird der Weg zur Umsetzung des semantischen Webs geebnet. Erst die semantische Verbindung von heterogenen Datenbeständen ermöglicht übergreifende Suchvorgänge und späteres "Machine Learning". Im Artikel werden die Aktivitäten der Europäischen Digitalen Bibliothek im Bereich des Metadatenmanagements und der semantischen Verlinkung von Daten skizziert. Dabei wird einerseits ein kurzer Überblick zu aktuellen Forschungsschwerpunkten und Umsetzungsstrategien gegeben, und darüber hinaus werden einzelne Projekte und maßgeschneiderte Serviceangebote für naturhistorische Daten, regionale Kultureinrichtungen und Audiosammlungen beschrieben.
  19. Park, J.-R.; Tosaka, Y.: Metadata quality control in digital repositories and collections : criteria, semantics, and mechanisms (2010) 0.00 
    0.0027546415 = product of:
  0.03856498 = sum of:
    0.03856498 = weight(_text_:wide in 4163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03856498 = score(doc=4163,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 4163, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4163)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    This article evaluates practices on metadata quality control in digital repositories and collections using an online survey of cataloging and metadata professionals in the United States. The study examines (1) the perceived importance of metadata quality, (2) metadata quality evaluation criteria and issues, and (3) mechanisms for building quality assurance into the metadata creation process. The survey finds wide recognition of the essential role of metadata quality assurance. Accuracy and consistency are prioritized as the main criteria for metadata quality evaluation. Metadata semantics greatly affects consistent and accurate metadata application. Strong awareness of metadata quality correlates with the widespread adoption of various quality control mechanisms, such as staff training, manual review, metadata guidelines, and metadata generation tools. And yet, metadata guidelines are used less frequently as a quality assurance mechanism in digital collections involving multiple institutions.
  20. White, H.: Examining scientific vocabulary : mapping controlled vocabularies with free text keywords (2013) 0.00 
    0.0026825934 = product of:
  0.018778153 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
    0.010706427 = product of:
      0.032119278 = sum of:
        0.032119278 = weight(_text_:22 in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032119278 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1953, 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=1953)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Scientific repositories create a new environment for studying traditional information science issues. The interaction between indexing terms provided by users and controlled vocabularies continues to be an area of debate and study. This article reports and analyzes findings from a study that mapped the relationships between free text keywords and controlled vocabulary terms used in the sciences. Based on this study's findings recommendations are made about which vocabularies may be better to use in scientific data repositories.
    Date
    29. 5.2015 19:09:22

Authors

Types

  • a 68
  • m 13
  • el 11
  • s 6
  • n 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications