Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015440154 = product of:
  0.038600385 = sum of:
    0.006139957 = weight(_text_:information in 4250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006139957 = score(doc=4250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 4250, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4250)
    0.03246043 = weight(_text_:und in 4250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03246043 = score(doc=4250,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.3248651 = fieldWeight in 4250, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4250)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Über die letzten Jahrzehnte ist die Menge digitaler Publikationen exponentiell angestiegen. Doch die digitalen Bestände sind durch die schleichende Obsoletheit von Datenformaten, Software und Hardware bedroht. Aber auch die zunehmende Komplexität neuerer Dokumente und zugehöriger Abspielumgebungen stellt ein Problem dar. Das Thema der Langzeitarchivierung wurde lange vernachlässigt, rückt aber zunehmend ins Bewusstsein der Verantwortlichen und der Öffentlichkeit, nicht zuletzt wegen spektakulärer Datenverluste. Ziel dieser Studie ist es, Grundlagen und Bausteine für eine technische Lösung zu entwickeln und deren Einbettung in die Aufgabenbereiche einer Archivierungsorganisation aufzuzeigen. Es fehlt eine systematische Herangehensweise zum Aufbau technischen Wissens, die der Heterogenität und Komplexität sowie der bereits vorhandenen Obsoletheit in der Welt des digitalen Publizierens gerecht wird. In einem ersten Schritt entwickeln wir deshalb ein Modell, das sich spezifisch den technischen Aspekten digitaler Objekte widmet. Dieses Modell erlaubt es, digitale Objekte bezüglich der Archivierungsaspekte zu charakterisieren und zu klassifizieren sowie technische Grundlagen präzise zuzuordnen. Auf dieser Basis können u. a. systematisch modulare Metadatenschemata gewonnen werden, die den Langzeiterhalt gezielt unterstützen. Das Modell liefert außerdem einen Beitrag zur Formulierung von zugehörigen Ontologien. Des Weiteren fördern die Modularität der Metadatenschemata und die einheitliche Begrifflichkeit einer Ontologie die Föderation und Kooperation von Archivierungsorganisationen und -systemen. Die Abstützung auf das entwickelte Modell systematisiert in einem weiteren Schritt die Herleitung von technisch orientierten Prozessen zur Erfüllung von Archivierungsaufgaben. Der Entwicklung eines eigenen Modells liegt die Einschätzung zu Grunde, dass Referenzmodelle, wie OAIS (Open Archival Information System), zwar eine geeignete Ausgangsbasis auf konzeptioneller Ebene bieten, aber sie sind zu generell und beschreiben vor- oder nachgelagerte Prozesse nur als Schnittstelle. Die aus dem Modell hergeleiteten Lösungsansätze sind zunächst unabhängig von einer konkreten Realisierung. Als Beitrag zur Umsetzung wird in einem eigenen Abschnitt der Einsatz von Datenbankmanagementsystemen (DBMS) als Implementierungsbasis ausführlich diskutiert.

0.0154286 = product of:
  0.0385715 = sum of:
    0.009209936 = weight(_text_:information in 2335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009209936 = score(doc=2335,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2335, 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=2335)
    0.029361563 = weight(_text_:und in 2335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029361563 = score(doc=2335,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 2335, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2335)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Wie eine gigantische Informationslandschaft tut sich das Internet vor unseren Augen auf. Und seit sich Google im Herbst letzten Jahres mit den Autoren und Verlegern, die die große Suchmaschine wegen Urheberrechtsverletzung verklagt hatten, auf einen Vergleich geeinigt hat, stellt sich die Frage nach der Orientierung im World Wide Web mit neuer Dringlichkeit. Während der letzten vier Jahre hat Google Millionen von Büchern, darunter zahllose urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke, aus den Beständen großer Forschungsbibliotheken digitalisiert und für die Onlinesuche ins Netz gestellt. Autoren und Verleger machten dagegen geltend, dass die Digitalisierung eine Copyrightverletzung darstelle. Nach langwierigen Verhandlungen einigte man sich auf eine Regelung, die gravierende Auswirkungen darauf haben wird, wie Bücher den Weg zu ihren Lesern finden. . . .

Theme

Information

0.0055411193 = product of:
  0.013852798 = sum of:
    0.0065124077 = weight(_text_:information in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065124077 = score(doc=1195,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.08228803 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
    0.0073403907 = weight(_text_:und in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0073403907 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.07346288 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Sponsored by the German Ministry of Education and Research with funding of 800.000 EURO, the German Network of Expertise in long-term storage of digital resources (nestor) began in June 2003 as a cooperative effort of 6 partners representing different players within the field of long-term preservation. The partners include: * The German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek) as the lead institution for the project * The State and University Library of Lower Saxony Göttingen (Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen) * The Computer and Media Service and the University Library of Humboldt-University Berlin (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) * The Bavarian State Library in Munich (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek) * The Institute for Museum Information in Berlin (Institut für Museumskunde) * General Directorate of the Bavarian State Archives (GDAB) As in other countries, long-term preservation of digital resources has become an important issue in Germany in recent years. Nevertheless, coming to agreement with institutions throughout the country to cooperate on tasks for a long-term preservation effort has taken a great deal of effort. Although there had been considerable attention paid to the preservation of physical media like CD-ROMS, technologies available for the long-term preservation of digital publications like e-books, digital dissertations, websites, etc., are still lacking. Considering the importance of the task within the federal structure of Germany, with the responsibility of each federal state for its science and culture activities, it is obvious that the approach to a successful solution of these issues in Germany must be a cooperative approach. Since 2000, there have been discussions about strategies and techniques for long-term archiving of digital information, particularly within the distributed structure of Germany's library and archival institutions. A key part of all the previous activities was focusing on using existing standards and analyzing the context in which those standards would be applied. One such activity, the Digital Library Forum Planning Project, was done on behalf of the German Ministry of Education and Research in 2002, where the vision of a digital library in 2010 that can meet the changing and increasing needs of users was developed and described in detail, including the infrastructure required and how the digital library would work technically, what it would contain and how it would be organized. The outcome was a strategic plan for certain selected specialist areas, where, amongst other topics, a future call for action for long-term preservation was defined, described and explained against the background of practical experience.

0.0018419871 = product of:
  0.009209936 = sum of:
    0.009209936 = weight(_text_:information in 1656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009209936 = score(doc=1656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1656, 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=1656)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Table of Contents 1 Economic Issues* 2 Electronic Books and Texts 2.1 Case Studies and History 2.2 General Works* 2.3 Library Issues* 3 Electronic Serials 3.1 Case Studies and History 3.2 Critiques 3.3 Electronic Distribution of Printed Journals 3.4 General Works* 3.5 Library Issues* 3.6 Research* 4 General Works* 5 Legal Issues 5.1 Intellectual Property Rights* 5.2 License Agreements 5.3 Other Legal Issues 6 Library Issues 6.1 Cataloging, Identifiers, Linking, and Metadata* 6.2 Digital Libraries* 6.3 General Works* 6.4 Information Integrity and Preservation* 7 New Publishing Models* 8 Publisher Issues 8.1 Digital Rights Management* 9 Repositories and E-Prints* Appendix A. Related Bibliographies by the Same Author Appendix B. About the Author

0.0017366421 = product of:
  0.00868321 = sum of:
    0.00868321 = weight(_text_:information in 1198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00868321 = score(doc=1198,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 1198, 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=1198)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

To arrive at relevant and reliable conclusions concerning the usability of a hypermedia educational e-book, developers have to apply a well-defined evaluation procedure as well as a set of clear, concrete and measurable quality criteria. Evaluating an educational tool involves not only testing the user interface but also the didactic method, the instructional materials and the interaction mechanisms to prove whether or not they help users reach their goals for learning. This article presents a number of evaluation criteria for hypermedia educational e-books and describes how they are embedded into an evaluation procedure. This work is chiefly aimed at helping education developers evaluate their systems, as well as to provide them with guidance for addressing educational requirements during the design process. In recent years, more and more educational e-books are being created, whether by academics trying to keep pace with the advanced requirements of the virtual university or by publishers seeking to meet the increasing demand for educational resources that can be accessed anywhere and anytime, and that include multimedia information, hypertext links and powerful search and annotating mechanisms. To develop a useful educational e-book many things have to be considered, such as the reading patterns of users, accessibility for different types of users and computer platforms, copyright and legal issues, development of new business models and so on. Addressing usability is very important since e-books are interactive systems and, consequently, have to be designed with the needs of their users in mind. Evaluating usability involves analyzing whether systems are effective, efficient and secure for use; easy to learn and remember; and have a good utility. Any interactive system, as e-books are, has to be assessed to determine if it is really usable as well as useful. Such an evaluation is not only concerned with assessing the user interface but is also aimed at analyzing whether the system can be used in an efficient way to meet the needs of its users - who in the case of educational e-books are learners and teachers. Evaluation provides the opportunity to gather valuable information about design decisions. However, to be successful the evaluation has to be carefully planned and prepared so developers collect appropriate and reliable data from which to draw relevant conclusions.

9.2099357E-4 = product of:
  0.004604968 = sum of:
    0.004604968 = weight(_text_:information in 1222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004604968 = score(doc=1222,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.058186423 = fieldWeight in 1222, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1222)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

CrossRef, the only full-blown application of the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®) System to date, is now a little over a year old. What started as a cooperative effort among publishers and technologists to prototype DOI-based linking of citations in e-journals evolved into an independent, non-profit enterprise in early 2000. We have made considerable headway during our first year, but there is still much to be done. When CrossRef went live with its collaborative linking service last June, it had enabled reference links in roughly 1,100 journals from a member base of 33 publishers, using a functional prototype system. The DOI-X prototype was described in an article published in D-Lib Magazine in February of 2000. On the occasion of CrossRef's first birthday as a live service, this article provides a non-technical overview of our progress to date and the major hurdles ahead. The electronic medium enriches the research literature arena for all players -- researchers, librarians, and publishers -- in numerous ways. Information has been made easier to discover, to share, and to sell. To take a simple example, the aggregation of book metadata by electronic booksellers was a huge boon to scholars seeking out obscure backlist titles, or discovering books they would never otherwise have known to exist. It was equally a boon for the publishers of those books, who saw an unprecedented surge in sales of backlist titles with the advent of centralized electronic bookselling. In the serials sphere, even in spite of price increases and the turmoil surrounding site licenses for some prime electronic content, libraries overall are now able to offer more content to more of their patrons. Yet undoubtedly, the key enrichment for academics and others navigating a scholarly corpus is linking, and in particular the linking that takes the reader out of one document and into another in the matter of a click or two. Since references are how authors make explicit the links between their work and precedent scholarship, what could be more fundamental to the reader than making those links immediately actionable? That said, automated linking is only really useful from a research perspective if it works across publications and across publishers. Not only do academics think about their own writings and those of their colleagues in terms of "author, title, rough date" -- the name of the journal itself is usually not high on the list of crucial identifying features -- but they are oblivious as to the identity of the publishers of all but their very favorite books and journals.