-
BIBFRAME Model Overview (2013)
0.06
0.0632833 = product of:
0.13560708 = sum of:
0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023199033 = score(doc=763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 763, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=763)
0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023199033 = score(doc=763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 763, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=763)
0.02347209 = weight(_text_:und in 763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02347209 = score(doc=763,freq=14.0), product of:
0.07245795 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.32394084 = fieldWeight in 763, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=763)
0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023199033 = score(doc=763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 763, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=763)
0.01712277 = weight(_text_:zur in 763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01712277 = score(doc=763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.100663416 = queryWeight, product of:
3.079125 = idf(docFreq=5528, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.17009923 = fieldWeight in 763, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.079125 = idf(docFreq=5528, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=763)
0.0033416408 = weight(_text_:in in 763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0033416408 = score(doc=763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 763, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=763)
0.022073472 = weight(_text_:der in 763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022073472 = score(doc=763,freq=12.0), product of:
0.073026784 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.30226544 = fieldWeight in 763, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=763)
0.46666667 = coord(7/15)
- Content
- Vgl. Kommentar Eversberg: Wer dranbleiben will am Puls der Zeit und speziell an der sich dynamisierenden Evolution eines neuen Datenformatkonzepts, der sollte sich langsam beeilen, sich mit BIBFRAME vertraut zu machen: http://bibframe.org Diese Startseite organisiert nun den Zugang zu allem, was schon vorliegt und präsentabel ist, und das ist allerhand. Wer erst mal nur schnuppern will und schauen, wie denn BIBFRAME-Daten wohl aussehen, gehe zur "demonstration area", wo man u.a. auch aufbereitete Daten der DNB findet. Es gibt ferner Online Tools, und darunter einen "Transformation service", dem man eigenes MARC-XML übergeben kann, damit er was draus mache. [Exporte mit unserem MARCXML.APR klappen nicht unmittelbar, man muß zumindest die in der Datei schon vorhandenen zwei Kopfzeilen aktivieren und ans Ende noch </collection> setzen. Und hierarchische Daten machen noch Probleme, die wir uns vornehmen müssen.] Wer jetzt denkt, "Was geht uns das alles an?", der lese die letzte Zeile, die da lautet: "BIBFRAME.ORG is a collaborative effort of US Library of Congress, Zepheira and you!"
- Date
- 23. 5.2013 19:54:27
-
Suominen, O.; Hyvönen, N.: From MARC silos to Linked Data silos? (2017)
0.02
0.021810908 = product of:
0.0817909 = sum of:
0.010645939 = weight(_text_:und in 3732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010645939 = score(doc=3732,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07245795 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 3732, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3732)
0.035589006 = weight(_text_:zur in 3732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035589006 = score(doc=3732,freq=6.0), product of:
0.100663416 = queryWeight, product of:
3.079125 = idf(docFreq=5528, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.3535446 = fieldWeight in 3732, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.079125 = idf(docFreq=5528, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3732)
0.00694547 = weight(_text_:in in 3732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00694547 = score(doc=3732,freq=6.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 3732, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3732)
0.028610492 = weight(_text_:der in 3732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028610492 = score(doc=3732,freq=14.0), product of:
0.073026784 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.3917808 = fieldWeight in 3732, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3732)
0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
- Abstract
- Seit einiger Zeit stellen Bibliotheken ihre bibliografischen Metadadaten verstärkt offen in Form von Linked Data zur Verfügung. Dabei kommen jedoch ganz unterschiedliche Modelle für die Strukturierung der bibliografischen Daten zur Anwendung. Manche Bibliotheken verwenden ein auf FRBR basierendes Modell mit mehreren Schichten von Entitäten, während andere flache, am Datensatz orientierte Modelle nutzen. Der Wildwuchs bei den Datenmodellen erschwert die Nachnutzung der bibliografischen Daten. Im Ergebnis haben die Bibliotheken die früheren MARC-Silos nur mit zueinander inkompatiblen Linked-Data-Silos vertauscht. Deshalb ist es häufig schwierig, Datensets miteinander zu kombinieren und nachzunutzen. Kleinere Unterschiede in der Datenmodellierung lassen sich zwar durch Schema Mappings in den Griff bekommen, doch erscheint es fraglich, ob die Interoperabilität insgesamt zugenommen hat. Der Beitrag stellt die Ergebnisse einer Studie zu verschiedenen veröffentlichten Sets von bibliografischen Daten vor. Dabei werden auch die unterschiedlichen Modelle betrachtet, um bibliografische Daten als RDF darzustellen, sowie Werkzeuge zur Erzeugung von entsprechenden Daten aus dem MARC-Format. Abschließend wird der von der Finnischen Nationalbibliothek verfolgte Ansatz behandelt.
-
Doerr, M.; Gradmann, S.; Hennicke, S.; Isaac, A.; Meghini, C.; Van de Sompel, H.: ¬The Europeana Data Model (EDM) (2010)
0.00
0.0025737227 = product of:
0.01930292 = sum of:
0.0040099686 = weight(_text_:in in 3967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0040099686 = score(doc=3967,freq=2.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 3967, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3967)
0.015292951 = weight(_text_:der in 3967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015292951 = score(doc=3967,freq=4.0), product of:
0.073026784 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.20941564 = fieldWeight in 3967, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3967)
0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
- Abstract
- The Europeana Data Model (EDM) is a new approach towards structuring and representing data delivered to Europeana by the various contributing cultural heritage institutions. The model aims at greater expressivity and flexibility in comparison to the current Europeana Semantic Elements (ESE), which it is destined to replace. The design principles underlying the EDM are based on the core principles and best practices of the Semantic Web and Linked Data efforts to which Europeana wants to contribute. The model itself builds upon established standards like RDF(S), OAI-ORE, SKOS, and Dublin Core. It acts as a common top-level ontology which retains original data models and information perspectives while at the same time enabling interoperability. The paper elaborates on the aforementioned aspects and the design principles which drove the development of the EDM.
- 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
-
Stephens, O.: Introduction to OpenRefine (2014)
0.00
7.561271E-4 = product of:
0.011341906 = sum of:
0.011341906 = weight(_text_:in in 2884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011341906 = score(doc=2884,freq=16.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 2884, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2884)
0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
- Abstract
- OpenRefine is described as a tool for working with 'messy' data - but what does this mean? It is probably easiest to describe the kinds of data OpenRefine is good at working with and the sorts of problems it can help you solve. OpenRefine is most useful where you have data in a simple tabular format but with internal inconsistencies either in data formats, or where data appears, or in terminology used. It can help you: Get an overview of a data set Resolve inconsistencies in a data set Help you split data up into more granular parts Match local data up to other data sets Enhance a data set with data from other sources Some common scenarios might be: 1. Where you want to know how many times a particular value appears in a column in your data. 2. Where you want to know how values are distributed across your whole data set. 3. Where you have a list of dates which are formatted in different ways, and want to change all the dates in the list to a single common date format.
-
Manguinhas, H.; Freire, N.; Machado, J.; Borbinha, J.: Supporting multilingual bibliographic resource discovery with Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (2012)
0.00
5.456877E-4 = product of:
0.008185315 = sum of:
0.008185315 = weight(_text_:in in 133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008185315 = score(doc=133,freq=12.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 133, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=133)
0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
- Abstract
- This paper describes an experiment exploring the hypothesis that innovative application of the Functional Require-ments for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) principles can complement traditional bibliographic resource discovery systems in order to improve the user experience. A specialized service was implemented that, when given a plain list of results from a regular online catalogue, was able to process, enrich and present that list in a more relevant way for the user. This service pre-processes the records of a traditional online catalogue in order to build a semantic structure following the FRBR model. The service also explores web search features that have been revolutionizing the way users conceptualize resource discovery, such as relevance ranking and metasearching. This work was developed in the context of the TELPlus project. We processed nearly one hundred thousand bibliographic and authority records, in multiple languages, and originating from twelve European na-tional libraries. This paper describes the architecture of the service and the main challenges faced, especially concerning the extraction and linking of the relevant FRBR entities from the bibliographic metadata produced by the libraries. The service was evaluated by end users, who filled out a questionnaire after using a traditional online catalogue and the new service, both with the same bibliographic collection. The analysis of the results supports the hypothesis that FRBR can be implemented for re-source discovery in a non-intrusive way, reusing the data of any existing traditional bibliographic system.
