Search (23 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Ilik, V.; Storlien, J.; Olivarez, J.: Metadata makeover (2014) 0.02 
    0.020622315 = product of:
  0.04124463 = sum of:
    0.04124463 = sum of:
      0.0054831975 = weight(_text_:a in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0054831975 = score(doc=2606,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 2606, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2606)
      0.03576143 = weight(_text_:22 in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03576143 = score(doc=2606,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13204344 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2606, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2606)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Catalogers have become fluent in information technology such as web design skills, HyperText Markup Language (HTML), Cascading Stylesheets (CSS), eXensible Markup Language (XML), and programming languages. The knowledge gained from learning information technology can be used to experiment with methods of transforming one metadata schema into another using various software solutions. This paper will discuss the use of eXtensible Stylesheet Language Transformations (XSLT) for repurposing, editing, and reformatting metadata. Catalogers have the requisite skills for working with any metadata schema, and if they are excluded from metadata work, libraries are wasting a valuable human resource.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  2. DeZelar-Tiedman, C.: Exploring user-contributed metadata's potential to enhance access to literary works (2011) 0.02 
    0.018649647 = product of:
  0.037299294 = sum of:
    0.037299294 = sum of:
      0.006646639 = weight(_text_:a in 2595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006646639 = score(doc=2595,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2595, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2595)
      0.030652655 = weight(_text_:22 in 2595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030652655 = score(doc=2595,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13204344 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2595, 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=2595)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Academic libraries have moved toward providing social networking features, such as tagging, in their library catalogs. To explore whether user tags can enhance access to individual literary works, the author obtained a sample of individual works of English and American literature from the twentieth and twenty-first centuries from a large academic library catalog and searched them in LibraryThing. The author compared match rates, the availability of subject headings and tags across various literary forms, and the terminology used in tags versus controlled-vocabulary headings on a subset of records. In addition, she evaluated the usefulness of available LibraryThing tags for the library catalog records that lacked subject headings. Options for utilizing the subject terms available in sources outside the local catalog also are discussed.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  3. Taniguchi, S.: Understanding RDA as a DC application profile (2013) 0.00 
    0.0022155463 = product of:
  0.0044310926 = sum of:
    0.0044310926 = product of:
      0.008862185 = sum of:
        0.008862185 = weight(_text_:a in 1906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008862185 = score(doc=1906,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1906, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The applicability of Dublin Core Application Profiles (DCAP) and the Singapore Framework for DCAPs to Resource Description and Access (RDA) were assessed. First, a draft RDA application profile is outlined, which reveals their applicability to RDA as a whole. Then, the current situation and issues involved in defining and specifying the RDA vocabularies, description structures, and syntaxes, all of which form the RDA application profile, are reviewed, for four levels of the RDA description structure; that is, the levels of aggregates and components of statements.
    Type
    a
  4. Edmunds, J.: Roadmap to nowhere : BIBFLOW, BIBFRAME, and linked data for libraries (2017) 0.00 
    0.0021981692 = product of:
  0.0043963385 = sum of:
    0.0043963385 = product of:
      0.008792677 = sum of:
        0.008792677 = weight(_text_:a in 3523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008792677 = score(doc=3523,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 3523, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3523)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    On December 12, 2016, Carl Stahmer and MacKenzie Smith presented at the CNI Members Fall Meeting about the BIBFLOW project, self-described on Twitter as "a two-year project of the UC Davis University Library and Zepheira investigating the future of library technical services." In her opening remarks, Ms. Smith, University Librarian at UC Davis, stated that one of the goals of the project was to devise a roadmap "to get from where we are today, which is kind of the 1970s with a little lipstick on it, to 2020, which is where we're going to be very soon." The notion that where libraries are today is somehow behind the times is one of the commonly heard rationales behind a move to linked data. Stated more precisely: - Libraries devote considerable time and resources to producing high-quality bibliographic metadata - This metadata is stored in unconnected silos - This metadata is in a format (MARC) that is incompatible with technologies of the emerging Semantic Web - The visibility of library metadata is diminished as a result of the two points above Are these assertions true? If yes, is linked data the solution?
    Type
    a
  5. Tallerås, C.; Dahl, J.H.B.; Pharo, N.: User conceptualizations of derivative relationships in the bibliographic universe (2018) 0.00 
    0.0016959244 = product of:
  0.0033918489 = sum of:
    0.0033918489 = product of:
      0.0067836978 = sum of:
        0.0067836978 = weight(_text_:a in 4247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0067836978 = score(doc=4247,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 4247, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4247)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose Considerable effort is devoted to developing new models for organizing bibliographic metadata. However, such models have been repeatedly criticized for their lack of proper user testing. The purpose of this paper is to present a study on how non-experts in bibliographic systems map the bibliographic universe and, in particular, how they conceptualize relationships between independent but strongly related entities. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on an open concept-mapping task performed to externalize the conceptualizations of 98 novice students. The conceptualizations of the resulting concept maps are identified and analyzed statistically. Findings The study shows that the participants' conceptualizations have great variety, differing in detail and granularity. These conceptualizations can be categorized into two main groups according to derivative relationships: those that apply a single-entity model directly relating document entities and those (the majority) that apply a multi-entity model relating documents through a high-level collocating node. These high-level nodes seem to be most adequately interpreted either as superwork devices collocating documents belonging to the same bibliographic family or as devices collocating documents belonging to a shared fictional world. Originality/value The findings can guide the work to develop bibliographic standards. Based on the diversity of the conceptualizations, the findings also emphasize the need for more user testing of both conceptual models and the bibliographic end-user systems implementing those models.
    Type
    a
  6. Valentino, M.L.: Integrating metadata creation into catalog workflow (2010) 0.00 
    0.0016788795 = product of:
  0.003357759 = sum of:
    0.003357759 = product of:
      0.006715518 = sum of:
        0.006715518 = weight(_text_:a in 4160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006715518 = score(doc=4160,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 4160, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4160)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The University of Oklahoma Libraries recently undertook a project designed to integrate digital library metadata creation into the workflow of the Cataloging Department. This article examines the conditions and factors that led to the project's genesis, the proposed and revised workflows that were developed, the staff training efforts that accompanied implementation of the project, and the results and benefits obtained through the project's implementation. The project presented several challenges but resulted in an improved workflow, greater use of Cataloging Department resources, and more accurate and useful metadata while increasing the Library's capacity to support digitization efforts in a timely fashion.
    Type
    a
  7. Gradmann, S.: Container - Content - Context : zur Evolution bibliothekarischer Metadaten von Katalogdaten zu Library Linked Data (2012) 0.00 
    0.0016616598 = product of:
  0.0033233196 = sum of:
    0.0033233196 = product of:
      0.006646639 = sum of:
        0.006646639 = weight(_text_:a in 1023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006646639 = score(doc=1023,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1023, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1023)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  8. Tosaka, Y.; Park, J.-r.: RDA: Resource description & access : a survey of the current state of the art (2013) 0.00 
    0.0015481601 = product of:
  0.0030963202 = sum of:
    0.0030963202 = product of:
      0.0061926404 = sum of:
        0.0061926404 = weight(_text_:a in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0061926404 = score(doc=677,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
    Type
    a
  9. Lopatin, L.: Metadata practices in academic and non-academic libraries for digital projects : a survey (2010) 0.00 
    0.0014390396 = product of:
  0.0028780792 = sum of:
    0.0028780792 = product of:
      0.0057561584 = sum of:
        0.0057561584 = weight(_text_:a in 4165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0057561584 = score(doc=4165,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4165, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4165)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article presents the results of a survey examining and comparing the metadata practices of academic and non-academic libraries regarding digital projects. It explores the types of metadata and vocabularies utilized, issues of interoperability, end-user-created metadata, and staffing for metadata planning and creation. Participants from 87 academic libraries and 40 non-academic libraries responded to the survey. The survey found that, despite their different environments, academic and non-academic libraries engage in similar metadata practices. The majority of the participating libraries have metadata librarians, who are the primary staff members responsible for all metadata activities. Academic libraries tend to use more metadata schemes, plan for metadata interoperability more frequently, and are more likely to have created new positions responsible for metadata for digital projects.
    Type
    a
  10. Wisser, K.: ¬The errors of our ways : using metadata quality research to understand common error patterns in the application of name headings (2014) 0.00 
    0.0014390396 = product of:
  0.0028780792 = sum of:
    0.0028780792 = product of:
      0.0057561584 = sum of:
        0.0057561584 = weight(_text_:a in 1574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0057561584 = score(doc=1574,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1574, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1574)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Using data culled during a metadata quality research project for the Social Network and Archival Context (SNAC) project, this article discusses common errors and problems in the use of standardized languages, specifically unambiguous names for persons and corporate bodies. Errors such as misspelling, qualifiers, format, and miss-encoding point to several areas where quality control measures can improve aggregation of data. Results from a large data set indicate that there are predictable problems that can be retrospectively corrected before aggregation. This research looked specifically at name formation and expression in metadata records, but the errors detected could be extended to other controlled vocabularies as well.
    Type
    a
  11. Han, M.-J.K.; Ream-Sotomayor, N.E.; Lampron, P.; Kudeki, D.: "Making Metadata Maker" (2016) 0.00 
    0.0014390396 = product of:
  0.0028780792 = sum of:
    0.0028780792 = product of:
      0.0057561584 = sum of:
        0.0057561584 = weight(_text_:a in 2883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0057561584 = score(doc=2883,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2883, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2883)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Cataloging and metadata operations in academic libraries are focusing on original cataloging of their unique and hidden collections that have not been available to users because of a lack of metadata. However, creating MARC format metadata is an expensive process; libraries need professional catalogers with appropriate experience and knowledge or must train staff to do the work. To improve the cataloging and metadata creation workflow, the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign Library developed a web application, Metadata Maker, which allows anyone to create metadata in four different formats, including MARC21 for an online public access catalog, regardless of their familiarity with metadata standards or systems that utilize the metadata. Released as an open source application, Metadata Maker supports diacritics and Unicode non-Roman language encoding, and creates metadata records that ensure discovery and access of unique library collections.
    Type
    a
  12. Ya-Ning, C.; Hao-Ren, K.: FRBRoo-based approach to heterogeneous metadata integration (2013) 0.00 
    0.0013847164 = product of:
  0.0027694327 = sum of:
    0.0027694327 = product of:
      0.0055388655 = sum of:
        0.0055388655 = weight(_text_:a in 1765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0055388655 = score(doc=1765,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1765, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1765)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper seeks to adopt FRBRoo as an ontological approach to integrate heterogeneous metadata, and transform human-understandable format into machine-understandable format for semantic query. Design/methodology/approach - Two cases of use with museum artefacts and literary works were exploited to illustrate how FRBRoo can be used to re-contextualize the semantics of elements and the semantic relationships embedded in those elements. The shared ontology was then RDFized and examples were explored to examine the feasibility of the proposed approach. Findings - FRBRoo can play a role as inter lingua aligning museum and library metadata to achieve heterogeneous metadata integration and semantic query without changing either of the original approaches to fit the other. Research limitations/implications - Exploration of more diverse use cases is required to further align the different approaches of museums and libraries using FRBRoo and make revisions. Practical implications - Solid evidence is provided for the use of FRBRoo in heterogeneous metadata integration and semantic query. Originality/value - This is the first study to elaborate how FRBRoo can play a role as a shared ontology to integrate the heterogeneous metadata generated by museums and libraries. This paper also shows how the proposed approach is distinct from the Dublin Core format crosswalk in re-contextualizing semantic meanings and their relationships, and further provides four new sub-types for mapping description language.
    Type
    a
  13. Pope, J.T.; Holley, R.P.: Google Book Search and metadata (2011) 0.00 
    0.0013707994 = product of:
  0.0027415988 = sum of:
    0.0027415988 = product of:
      0.0054831975 = sum of:
        0.0054831975 = weight(_text_:a in 1887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054831975 = score(doc=1887,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 1887, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1887)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article summarizes published documents on metadata provided by Google for books scanned as part of the Google Book Search (GBS) project and provides suggestions for improvement. The faulty, misleading, and confusing metadata in current Google records can pose potentially serious problems for users of GBS. Google admits that it took data, which proved to be inaccurate, from many sources and is attempting to correct errors. Some argue that metadata is not needed with keyword searching; but optical character recognition (OCR) errors, synonym control, and materials in foreign languages make reliable metadata a requirement for academic researchers. The authors recommend that users should be able to submit error reports to Google to correct faulty metadata.
    Type
    a
  14. Derrot, S.; Koskas, M.: My fair metadata : cataloging legal deposit Ebooks at the National Library of France (2016) 0.00 
    0.0013707994 = product of:
  0.0027415988 = sum of:
    0.0027415988 = product of:
      0.0054831975 = sum of:
        0.0054831975 = weight(_text_:a in 5140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054831975 = score(doc=5140,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 5140, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5140)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    French law on digital legal deposit covers websites and online content as well as ebooks. It imposes no obligation to produce a bibliography, indexing being sufficient. But despite their innovative characteristics, ebooks are still books, and their metadata is closer to that of printed materials than to the web indexing. To set up an ebook deposit workflow, the BnF benefits from its experience with digital documents and its tradition of legal deposit. This is to present the questions that it faces when dealing with the cataloging of ebooks and the management of their metadata, and the solutions that are emerging.
    Type
    a
  15. 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 
    0.0013707994 = product of:
  0.0027415988 = sum of:
    0.0027415988 = product of:
      0.0054831975 = sum of:
        0.0054831975 = weight(_text_:a in 5160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054831975 = score(doc=5160,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 5160, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5160)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article presents a case study of quality management issues for electronic resource metadata to assess the support of user tasks (find, select, and obtain library resources) and potential for increased efficiencies in acquisitions and cataloging workflows. The authors evaluated the quality of existing bibliographic records (mostly vendor supplied) for e-resource collections as compared with records for the same collections in OCLC's WorldShare Collection Manager (WCM). Findings are that WCM records better support user tasks by containing more summaries and tables of contents; other checkpoints are largely comparable between the two source record groups. The transition to WCM records is discussed.
    Type
    a
  16. Park, J.-R.; Tosaka, Y.: Metadata quality control in digital repositories and collections : criteria, semantics, and mechanisms (2010) 0.00 
    0.0011749709 = product of:
  0.0023499418 = sum of:
    0.0023499418 = product of:
      0.0046998835 = sum of:
        0.0046998835 = weight(_text_:a in 4163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0046998835 = score(doc=4163,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 4163, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4163)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
    Type
    a
  17. Zapounidou, S.; Sfakakis, M.; Papatheodorou, C.: Library data integration : towards BIBFRAME mapping to EDM (2014) 0.00 
    0.0011749709 = product of:
  0.0023499418 = sum of:
    0.0023499418 = product of:
      0.0046998835 = sum of:
        0.0046998835 = weight(_text_:a in 1589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0046998835 = score(doc=1589,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1589, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Integration of library data into the Linked Data environment is a key issue in libraries and is approached on the basis of interoperability between library data conceptual models. Achieving interoperability for different representations of the same or related entities between the library and cultural heritage domains shall enhance rich bibliographic data reusability and support the development of new data-driven information services. This paper aims to contribute to the desired interoperability by attempting to map core semantic paths between the BIBFRAME and EDM conceptual models. BIBFRAME is developed by the Library of Congress to support transformation of legacy library data in MARC format into linked data. EDM is the model developed for and used in the Europeana Cultural Heritage aggregation portal.
    Type
    a
  18. Farneth, D.: How can we achieve GLAM? : Understanding and overcoming the challenges to integrating metadata across museums, archives, and libraries: Part 2 (2016) 0.00 
    0.0011749709 = product of:
  0.0023499418 = sum of:
    0.0023499418 = product of:
      0.0046998835 = sum of:
        0.0046998835 = weight(_text_:a in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0046998835 = score(doc=5130,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 5130, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5130)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This IFLA Rare Books and Special Collections Section presentation and discussion grew out of a panel discussion of the same title held at CIDOC's annual meeting in September, 2015. Ideas drawn from the panel discussion were presented to IFLA participants for further commentary. The author prefaces the open discussion with brief contextual information about how the library, archives, and museums sectors are addressing the challenge of metadata integration. Megan Phillips, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, leads an open discussion, an edited transcript of which forms the main part of this article.
    Type
    a
  19. Pattuelli, M.C.: From uniform identifiers to graphs, from individuals to communities : what we talk about when we talk about linked person data (2018) 0.00 
    0.0011077732 = product of:
  0.0022155463 = sum of:
    0.0022155463 = product of:
      0.0044310926 = sum of:
        0.0044310926 = weight(_text_:a in 4816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0044310926 = score(doc=4816,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 4816, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4816)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  20. Hider, P.: Information resource description : creating and managing metadata (2012) 0.00 
    9.791424E-4 = product of:
  0.0019582848 = sum of:
    0.0019582848 = product of:
      0.0039165695 = sum of:
        0.0039165695 = weight(_text_:a in 2086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0039165695 = score(doc=2086,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 2086, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2086)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.

Authors

Languages

  • e 22
  • d 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 21
  • m 2
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications