Search (83 results, page 1 of 5)

0.12774618 = product of:
  0.17032824 = sum of:
    0.02427594 = weight(_text_:information in 4790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02427594 = score(doc=4790,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 4790, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4790)
    0.1106488 = weight(_text_:standards in 4790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1106488 = score(doc=4790,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.49242854 = fieldWeight in 4790, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4790)
    0.035403505 = product of:
      0.07080701 = sum of:
        0.07080701 = weight(_text_:organization in 4790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07080701 = score(doc=4790,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.39391994 = fieldWeight in 4790, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4790)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Defines fifteen metadata elements for resource description in a cross-disciplinary information environment.

Editor

National Information Standards Organization

0.12241349 = product of:
  0.16321799 = sum of:
    0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 2005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017165681 = score(doc=2005,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2005, 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=2005)
    0.1106488 = weight(_text_:standards in 2005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1106488 = score(doc=2005,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.49242854 = fieldWeight in 2005, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2005)
    0.035403505 = product of:
      0.07080701 = sum of:
        0.07080701 = weight(_text_:organization in 2005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07080701 = score(doc=2005,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.39391994 = fieldWeight in 2005, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2005)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Imprint

Baltimore : National Information Standards Organization

0.09424831 = product of:
  0.12566441 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 2195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=2195,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2195, 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=2195)
    0.09582469 = weight(_text_:standards in 2195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09582469 = score(doc=2195,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.42645568 = fieldWeight in 2195, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2195)
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 2195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=2195,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 2195, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2195)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Riley's survey (2010) of metadata standards for cultural heritage collections represents a rare attempt to classify such standards, in this case according to their domain, community, function and purpose. This paper reports on a survey of metadata standards with particular functions, i.e. those of schemas and vocabularies, but that have been published online for any domain or community (and not just those of the cultural heritage sector). In total, 53 schemas and 328 vocabularies were identified as within scope, and were classified according to their subject coverage and the type of warrant used in their reported development, i.e. resource, expert or user warrant, or a combination of these types. There was found to be a general correlation between the coverage of the schemas and vocabularies. Areas of underrepresentation would appear to be the humanities and the fine arts, and, in the case of schemas, also law, engineering, manufacturing and sport. Schemas would appear to be constructed more by consulting experts and considering endusers' search behaviour; vocabularies, on the other hand, are developed more by considering the information resources themselves, or by combining a range of methods.

Source

Knowledge organization. 42(2015) no.3, S.154-163

0.09367848 = product of:
  0.18735696 = sum of:
    0.019420752 = weight(_text_:information in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019420752 = score(doc=4826,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = 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)
    0.1679362 = sum of:
      0.11329121 = weight(_text_:organization in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11329121 = score(doc=4826,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.6302719 = fieldWeight in 4826, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4826)
      0.054644987 = weight(_text_:22 in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054644987 = score(doc=4826,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

18. 1.2019 19:13:22

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.16

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

0.08483097 = product of:
  0.11310796 = sum of:
    0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017165681 = score(doc=677,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = 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)
    0.07824052 = weight(_text_:standards in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07824052 = score(doc=677,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34819958 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=677,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

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

0.056349926 = product of:
  0.11269985 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=3965,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = 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)
    0.09896731 = weight(_text_:standards in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09896731 = score(doc=3965,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.4404415 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.
The paper discusses the importance of these initiatives in releasing as linked data the very large quantities of rich, professionally-generated metadata stored in formats based on these standards, such as UNIMARC and MARC21, addressing such issues as critical mass for semantic and statistical inferencing, integration with user- and machine-generated metadata, and authenticity, veracity and trust. The paper also discusses related initiatives to release controlled vocabularies, including the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), ISBD, Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF), Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), Rameau (French subject headings), Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), and the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF) as linked data. Finally, the paper discusses the potential collective impact of these initiatives on metadata workflows and management systems.

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

0.04911471 = product of:
  0.09822942 = sum of:
    0.009710376 = weight(_text_:information in 4911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009710376 = score(doc=4911,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 4911, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4911)
    0.088519044 = weight(_text_:standards in 4911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088519044 = score(doc=4911,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.39394283 = fieldWeight in 4911, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4911)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

LCSH

Cataloging of electronic information resources / Standards
Metadata / Standards

Subject

Cataloging of electronic information resources / Standards
Metadata / Standards

0.044259522 = product of:
  0.17703809 = sum of:
    0.17703809 = weight(_text_:standards in 5146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17703809 = score(doc=5146,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.78788567 = fieldWeight in 5146, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5146)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Increasingly, metadata standards have been recognized as constructed rather than neutral. In this article, we argue for the importance of a documentation approach to metadata standards creation as a codification of this growing recognition. By making design decisions explicit, the documentation approach dispels presumptions of neutrality and, drawing on the "wicked problems" theoretical framework, acknowledges the constructed nature of standards as "clumsy solutions."

0.040847298 = product of:
  0.081694596 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=4218,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4218, 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=4218)
    0.06955662 = sum of:
      0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035403505 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
      0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03415312 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4218, 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=4218)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The discovery and retrieval of video games in library and information systems is, by and large, dependent on a limited set of descriptive metadata. Noticeably missing from this metadata are classifications of visual style-despite the overwhelmingly visual nature of most video games and the interest in visual style among video game users. One explanation for this paucity is the difficulty in eliciting consistent judgements about visual style, likely due to subjective interpretations of terminology and a lack of demonstrable testing for coinciding judgements. This study presents a taxonomy of video game visual styles constructed from the findings of a 22-participant cataloging user study of visual styles. A detailed description of the study, and its value and shortcomings, are presented along with reflections about the challenges of cultivating consensus about visual style in video games. The high degree of overall agreement in the user study demonstrates the potential value of a descriptor like visual style and the use of a cataloging study in developing visual style taxonomies. The resulting visual style taxonomy, the methods and analysis described herein may help improve the organization and retrieval of video games and possibly other visual materials like graphic designs, illustrations, and animations.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.5, S.633-646

0.040477425 = product of:
  0.08095485 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=43,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 43, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=43)
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=43,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 43, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=43)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Completeness of metadata is one of the most essential characteristics of their quality. An incomplete metadata record is a record of degraded quality. Existing approaches to measure metadata completeness limit their scope in counting the existence of values in fields, regardless of the metadata hierarchy as defined in international standards. Such a traditional approach overlooks several issues that need to be taken into account. This paper presents a fine-grained metrics system for measuring metadata completeness, based on field completeness. A metadata field is considered to be a container of multiple pieces of information. In this regard, the proposed system is capable of following the hierarchy of metadata as it is set by the metadata schema and admeasuring the effect of multiple values of multivalued fields. An application of the proposed metrics system, after being configured according to specific user requirements, to measure completeness of a real-world set of metadata is demonstrated. The results prove its ability to assess the sufficiency of metadata to describe a resource and provide targeted measures of completeness throughout the metadata hierarchy.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.724-737

0.03970564 = product of:
  0.07941128 = sum of:
    0.016818866 = weight(_text_:information in 5153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016818866 = score(doc=5153,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19003606 = fieldWeight in 5153, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5153)
    0.06259242 = weight(_text_:standards in 5153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06259242 = score(doc=5153,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27855965 = fieldWeight in 5153, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5153)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This highly practical handbook teaches you how to unlock the value of your existing metadata through cleaning, reconciliation, enrichment and linking and how to streamline the process of new metadata creation. Libraries, archives and museums are facing up to the challenge of providing access to fast growing collections whilst managing cuts to budgets. Key to this is the creation, linking and publishing of good quality metadata as Linked Data that will allow their collections to be discovered, accessed and disseminated in a sustainable manner. This highly practical handbook teaches you how to unlock the value of your existing metadata through cleaning, reconciliation, enrichment and linking and how to streamline the process of new metadata creation. Metadata experts Seth van Hooland and Ruben Verborgh introduce the key concepts of metadata standards and Linked Data and how they can be practically applied to existing metadata, giving readers the tools and understanding to achieve maximum results with limited resources. Readers will learn how to critically assess and use (semi-)automated methods of managing metadata through hands-on exercises within the book and on the accompanying website. Each chapter is built around a case study from institutions around the world, demonstrating how freely available tools are being successfully used in different metadata contexts. This handbook delivers the necessary conceptual and practical understanding to empower practitioners to make the right decisions when making their organisations resources accessible on the Web. Key topics include, the value of metadata; metadata creation - architecture, data models and standards; metadata cleaning; metadata reconciliation; metadata enrichment through Linked Data and named-entity recognition; importing and exporting metadata; ensuring a sustainable publishing model. This will be an invaluable guide for metadata practitioners and researchers within all cultural heritage contexts, from library cataloguers and archivists to museum curatorial staff. It will also be of interest to students and academics within information science and digital humanities fields. IT managers with responsibility for information systems, as well as strategy heads and budget holders, at cultural heritage organisations, will find this a valuable decision-making aid.

LCSH

Libraries and museums / Electronic information resources
Archives / Electronic information resources

Subject

Libraries and museums / Electronic information resources
Archives / Electronic information resources

0.038344346 = product of:
  0.07668869 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 2389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=2389,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2389, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2389)
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 2389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=2389,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 2389, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2389)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Considering the need for metadata standards suitable for the Semantic Web, this paper describes the RDA Element Sets and the RDA Value Vocabularies that were created from attributes and relationships defined in Resource Description and Access (RDA). First, we present the vocabularies included in RDA Element Sets: the vocabularies of classes, of properties and of properties unconstrained by FRBR entities; and then we present the RDA Value Vocabularies, which are under development. As a conclusion, we highlight that these vocabularies can be used to meet the needs of different contexts due to the unconstrained properties and to the independence of the vocabularies of properties from the vocabularies of values and vice versa.

Series

Communications in computer and information science; 544

0.035264097 = product of:
  0.070528194 = sum of:
    0.030945875 = weight(_text_:information in 2086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030945875 = score(doc=2086,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34965688 = fieldWeight in 2086, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2086)
    0.039582323 = product of:
      0.07916465 = sum of:
        0.07916465 = weight(_text_:organization in 2086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07916465 = score(doc=2086,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.44041592 = fieldWeight in 2086, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2086)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

An overview of the field of information organization that examines resource description as both a product and process of the contemporary digital environment. This timely book employs the unifying mechanism of the semantic web and the resource description framework to integrate the various traditions and practices of information and knowledge organization. Uniquely, it covers both the domain-specific traditions and practices and the practices of the 'metadata movement' through a single lens - that of resource description in the broadest, semantic web sense. This approach more readily accommodates coverage of the new Resource Description and Access (RDA) standard, which aims to move library cataloguing into the centre of the semantic web. The work surrounding RDA looks set to revolutionise the field of information organization, and this book will bring both the standard and its model and concepts into focus.

BK

06.99 (Information und Dokumentation: Sonstiges)

Classification

06.99 (Information und Dokumentation: Sonstiges)

Content

Information resource attributes - metadata for information retrieval - metadata sources and quality - economics and management of metadata - knowledge organization systems - the semantic web - books and e-books, websites and audiovisual resources - business and government documents - learning resources - the field of information/knowledge organization.

LCSH

Libraries / information technology

RSWK

Information / Beschreibung (BVB)

Subject

Information / Beschreibung (BVB)
Libraries / information technology

0.03509516 = product of:
  0.07019032 = sum of:
    0.014865918 = weight(_text_:information in 4048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014865918 = score(doc=4048,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 4048, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4048)
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 4048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=4048,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 4048, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4048)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose Provenance information is crucial for consistent maintenance of metadata schemas over time. The purpose of this paper is to propose a provenance model named DSP-PROV to keep track of structural changes of metadata schemas. Design/methodology/approach The DSP-PROV model is developed through applying the general provenance description standard PROV of the World Wide Web Consortium to the Dublin Core Application Profile. Metadata Application Profile of Digital Public Library of America is selected as a case study to apply the DSP-PROV model. Finally, this paper evaluates the proposed model by comparison between formal provenance description in DSP-PROV and semi-formal change log description in English. Findings Formal provenance description in the DSP-PROV model has advantages over semi-formal provenance description in English to keep metadata schemas consistent over time. Research limitations/implications The DSP-PROV model is applicable to keep track of the structural changes of metadata schema over time. Provenance description of other features of metadata schema such as vocabulary and encoding syntax are not covered. Originality/value This study proposes a simple model for provenance description of structural features of metadata schemas based on a few standards widely accepted on the Web and shows the advantage of the proposed model to conventional semi-formal provenance description.

0.034238644 = product of:
  0.06847729 = sum of:
    0.019420752 = weight(_text_:information in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019420752 = score(doc=4823,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 4823, 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=4823)
    0.049056537 = product of:
      0.098113075 = sum of:
        0.098113075 = weight(_text_:organization in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098113075 = score(doc=4823,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.5458315 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.16

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

0.033731185 = product of:
  0.06746237 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 3346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=3346,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3346, 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=3346)
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 3346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=3346,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 3346, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3346)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In this paper we describe the creation and use of metadata on the early Arpanet as part of normal network function. By using the Arpanet Host-Host Protocol and its sockets as an entry point for studying the generation of metadata, we show that the development and function of key Arpanet infrastructure can be studied by examining the creation and stabilization of metadata. More specifically, we use the Host-Host Protocol's sockets as an example of something that, at the level of the network, functions as both network infrastructure and metadata simultaneously. By presenting the function of sockets in tandem with an overview of the Host-Host Protocol, we argue for the further integrated study of infrastructure and metadata. Finally, we reintroduce the concept of infradata to refer specifically to data that locate data throughout an infrastructure and are required by the infrastructure to function, separating them from established and stabilized standards. We argue for the future application of infradata as a concept for the study of histories and political economies of networks, bridging the largely library and information science (LIS) study of metadata with the largely science and technology studies (STS) domain of infrastructure.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.2, S.412-422

0.03139454 = product of:
  0.06278908 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 4779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=4779,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4779, 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=4779)
    0.049056537 = product of:
      0.098113075 = sum of:
        0.098113075 = weight(_text_:organization in 4779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098113075 = score(doc=4779,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.5458315 = fieldWeight in 4779, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4779)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.16

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

0.03139454 = product of:
  0.06278908 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 4807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=4807,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4807, 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=4807)
    0.049056537 = product of:
      0.098113075 = sum of:
        0.098113075 = weight(_text_:organization in 4807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098113075 = score(doc=4807,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.5458315 = fieldWeight in 4807, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4807)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.16

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

0.03139454 = product of:
  0.06278908 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 4816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=4816,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4816, 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=4816)
    0.049056537 = product of:
      0.098113075 = sum of:
        0.098113075 = weight(_text_:organization in 4816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098113075 = score(doc=4816,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.5458315 = fieldWeight in 4816, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4816)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.16

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

0.03129621 = product of:
  0.12518483 = sum of:
    0.12518483 = weight(_text_:standards in 4248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12518483 = score(doc=4248,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.5571193 = fieldWeight in 4248, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4248)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to employ a case study of the Omeka content management system to demonstrate how the adoption and implementation of a metadata standard (in this case, Dublin Core) can result in contrasting rhetorical arguments regarding metadata utility, quality, and reliability. In the Omeka example, the author illustrate a conceptual disconnect in how two metadata stakeholders - standards creators and standards users - operationalize metadata quality. For standards creators such as the Dublin Core community, metadata quality involves implementing a standard properly, according to established usage principles; in contrast, for standards users like Omeka, metadata quality involves mere adoption of the standard, with little consideration of proper usage and accompanying principles. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses an approach based on rhetorical criticism. The paper aims to establish whether Omeka's given ends (the position that Omeka claims to take regarding Dublin Core) align with Omeka's guiding ends (Omeka's actual argument regarding Dublin Core). To make this assessment, the paper examines both textual evidence (what Omeka says) and material-discursive evidence (what Omeka does). Findings The evidence shows that, while Omeka appears to argue that adopting the Dublin Core is an integral part of Omeka's mission, the platform's lack of support for Dublin Core implementation makes an opposing argument. Ultimately, Omeka argues that the appearance of adopting a standard is more important than its careful implementation. Originality/value This study contributes to our understanding of how metadata standards are understood and used in practice. The misalignment between Omeka's position and the goals of the Dublin Core community suggests that Omeka, and some portion of its users, do not value metadata interoperability and aggregation in the same way that the Dublin Core community does. This indicates that, although certain values regarding standards adoption may be pervasive in the metadata community, these values are not equally shared amongst all stakeholders in a digital library ecosystem. The way that standards creators (Dublin Core) understand what it means to "adopt a standard" is different from the way that standards users (Omeka) understand what it means to "adopt a standard."