Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.027921584 = product of:
  0.055843167 = sum of:
    0.055843167 = product of:
      0.1675295 = sum of:
        0.1675295 = weight(_text_:lcsh in 4117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1675295 = score(doc=4117,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.32324925 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059678715 = queryNorm
            0.5182672 = fieldWeight in 4117, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4117)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To enable and guide effective metadata creation it is essential to understand the structure and patterns of the activities of the community around the photographs, resources used, and scale and quality of the socially created metadata relative to the metadata and knowledge already encoded in existing knowledge organization systems. This article presents an analysis of Flickr member discussions around the photographs of the Library of Congress photostream in Flickr. The article also reports on an analysis of the intrinsic and relational quality of the photostream tags relative to two knowledge organization systems: the Thesaurus for Graphic Materials (TGM) and the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). Thirty seven percent of the original tag set and 15.3% of the preprocessed set (after the removal of tags with fewer than three characters and URLs) were invalid or misspelled terms. Nouns, named entity terms, and complex terms constituted approximately 77% of the preprocessed set. More than a half of the photostream tags were not found in the TGM and LCSH, and more than a quarter of those terms were regular nouns and noun phrases. This suggests that these terms could be complimentary to more traditional methods of indexing using controlled vocabularies.

Aid

LCSH

0.025123095 = product of:
  0.05024619 = sum of:
    0.05024619 = product of:
      0.10049238 = sum of:
        0.10049238 = weight(_text_:assessment in 172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10049238 = score(doc=172,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32948738 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059678715 = queryNorm
            0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 172, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=172)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper is a current assessment of the status of metadata creation and mapping between catalogerdefined field names and Dublin Core (DC) metadata elements across three digital image collections. The metadata elements that evince the most frequently inaccurate, inconsistent and incomplete DC metadata application are identified. As well, the most frequently occurring locally added metadata elements and associated pattern development are examined. For this, a randomly collected sample of 659 metadata item records from three digital image collections is analyzed. Implications and issues drawn from the evaluation of the current status of metadata creation and mapping are also discussed in relation to the issue of semantic interoperability of concept representation across digital image collections. The findings of the study suggest that conceptual ambiguities and semantic overlaps inherent among some DC metadata elements hinder semantic interoperability. The DC metadata scheme needs to be refined in order to disambiguate semantic relations of certain DC metadata elements that present semantic overlaps and conceptual ambiguities between element names and their corresponding definitions. The findings of the study also suggest that the development of mediation mechanisms such as concept networks that facilitate the metadata creation and mapping process are critically needed for enhancing metadata quality.

0.006064231 = product of:
  0.012128462 = sum of:
    0.012128462 = product of:
      0.024256924 = sum of:
        0.024256924 = weight(_text_:22 in 4054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024256924 = score(doc=4054,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20898469 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059678715 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 4054, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4054)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

6. 1.2011 11:22:12