Search (79 results, page 4 of 4)

0.0027367936 = product of:
  0.013683967 = sum of:
    0.013683967 = weight(_text_:of in 902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013683967 = score(doc=902,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 902, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=902)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A crucial question for librarians is whether to catalogue Internet information sources, and electronic sources in general, which may contain metainformation of the texts of articles. Librarians can help researchers with data identification and access in 4 ways: making OPAC available on the Internet; providing a complete selection of Gopher, Ftp, WWW, etc. site lists; maintaining a Web site, coordinateted by the library, that functions as an Internet access point; and organising access to existing search engines that do automatic indexing. Briefly reviews several metadata formats, including USMARC field 856, IAFA templates, SOIP (Harvest), TEI Headers, Capcas Head and URC

0.0027367936 = product of:
  0.013683967 = sum of:
    0.013683967 = weight(_text_:of in 2578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013683967 = score(doc=2578,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 2578, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2578)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A 1 day seminar was held in Aug 1997, in Synney, Australia, sponsored by the Information science Section of the australia Library and Information Association, on metadata. It focused on building a conceptual framework for metadata. The National Library is developing PANDORA (Preserving and Accessing Networked documentary Resources of Australia) an electronic archive designed to provide long term access to significant Australian online publications. An architecture for access to government information has been developed. The Distributed System Technology Centre's Resource Discivery Project Unit has developed an information presentation tool called HyperIndex and a meta-data searcher called HotOIL

Source

Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 24(1997) no.1, Oct./Nov., S.18-21

0.0027367936 = product of:
  0.013683967 = sum of:
    0.013683967 = weight(_text_:of in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013683967 = score(doc=5509,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Discusses the development and implications of electronic resource description systems, including the familiar library standard, the MARC Format, and the newly developing Resource Description Format (RDF), as well as other non-library markup languages such as XML, HTML, SGML, etc. Explains the differences between content and container, and the kinds of rules needed for describing each. Closes by outlining clearly why it is important for librarians to reach out beyond the library community and participate in the development of metadata standards.

0.002708723 = product of:
  0.013543615 = sum of:
    0.013543615 = weight(_text_:of in 2562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013543615 = score(doc=2562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 2562, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2562)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 24(1997) no.1, Oct./Nov., S.4-29

0.002708723 = product of:
  0.013543615 = sum of:
    0.013543615 = weight(_text_:of in 2473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013543615 = score(doc=2473,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 2473, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2473)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Canadian journal of information and library science. 25(2000) no.4, S.3-17

0.002708723 = product of:
  0.013543615 = sum of:
    0.013543615 = weight(_text_:of in 5508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013543615 = score(doc=5508,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 5508, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5508)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Changes in the environment in which the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition (AACR2), currently operates are examined, including the growth in electronic publishing and use of the Internet, and the development and increasing use of a range of other metadata standards, such as the Dublin Core. AACR2 and other metadata standards, particularly the Dublin Core, are compared. It is argued that AACR2 should continue to be used for describing selected Web-based resources. Criteria for deciding whether to use AACR2 or another metadata standard are defined, drawing on the experiences of two Brisbane universities in developing mechanisms for providing access to electronic resources. Five options are evaluated: catalog only (direct entry); catalog only (indirect entry); subject gateway only; catalog and subject gateway combined; and shared databases, such as CORC. The option chosen by the two universities is identified and explained. Revisions to the rules in AACR2 for cataloging electronic resources resulting from decisions made through 2000 are described. Possible future revisions are also explored.

0.002708723 = product of:
  0.013543615 = sum of:
    0.013543615 = weight(_text_:of in 5510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013543615 = score(doc=5510,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 5510, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5510)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Explores the opportunities for libraries to contribute to the proposed global "Semantic Web." Library name and subject authority files, including work that IFLA has done related to a new view of "Universal Bibliographic Control" in the Internet environment and the work underway in the U.S. and Europe, are making a reality of the virtual international authority file on the Web. The bibliographic and authority records created according to AACR2 reflect standards for metadata that libraries have provided for years. New opportunities for using these records in the digital world are described (interoperability), including mapping with Dublin Core metadata. AACR2 recently updated Chapter 9 on Electronic Resources. That process and highlights of the changes are described, including Library of Congress' rule interpretations.

0.002708723 = product of:
  0.013543615 = sum of:
    0.013543615 = weight(_text_:of in 1574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013543615 = score(doc=1574,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 1574, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1574)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.002708723 = product of:
  0.013543615 = sum of:
    0.013543615 = weight(_text_:of in 5750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013543615 = score(doc=5750,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 5750, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5750)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.002708723 = product of:
  0.013543615 = sum of:
    0.013543615 = weight(_text_:of in 674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013543615 = score(doc=674,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 674, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=674)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.0026202803 = product of:
  0.013101401 = sum of:
    0.013101401 = weight(_text_:of in 3082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013101401 = score(doc=3082,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20055744 = fieldWeight in 3082, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3082)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Electronic Cataloging is the undertaking of three pioneers in library science: Sheila S. Intner, Sally C. Tseng, and Mary L. Larsgaard, who co-edited Maps and Related Cartographic Materials: Cataloging Classification, and Bibliographic Control (Haworth, 2000). With illustrations, references, additional reading lists, and case studies, this research tool offers you tips and strategies to make metadata work for you and your library. No one currently involved in information cataloging should be without this book! For a complete list of contents, visit our Web site at www.HaworthPress.com. Electronic Cataloging: AACR2 and Metadata for Serials and Monographs is a collection of papers about recent developments in metadata and its practical applications in cataloging. Acknowledged experts examine a wide variety of techniques for managing serials and monographs using standards and schemas like MARC, AACR2, ISSN, ISBD, and Dublin Core. From the broadest introduction of metadata usage to the revisions of AACR2 through 2000, this book offers vital analysis and strategy for achieving Universal Bibliographic Control. Electronic Cataloging is divided into three parts. The first is an introduction to metadata, what it is, and its relationship to the library in general. The second portion focuses in more an how metadata can be utilized by a library system and the possibilities in the near future. The third portion is very specific, dealing with individual standards of metadata and elements, such as AACR2 and MARC, as well as current policies and prospects for the future. Information covered in Electronic Cataloging includes: an overview of metadata and seriality and why it is important to the cataloging community Universal Bibliographic Control: what has succeeded so far in cataloging and how metadata will evolve the step-by-step process for creating an effective metadata repository for the community the inherent problems that accompany cataloging nonprint research materials, such as electronic serials and the Web metadata schemas and the use of controlled vocabularies and classification systems standards of metadata, including MARC, Dublin Core, RDF, and AACR2, with emphasis an the revisions and efforts made with AACR2 through 2000 an overview of the ISSN (International Serials Standard Number) and its relationships to current codes and metadata standards, including AACR2 and much more!

0.0025538085 = product of:
  0.0127690425 = sum of:
    0.0127690425 = weight(_text_:of in 933) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0127690425 = score(doc=933,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 933, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=933)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper introduces the two concepts of Content and Coding which together define Metadata. The encoding scheme used to hold the data content is referred to as a shell. One such shell is the MARC format. In this paper I describe the MARC format and its application to Internet resources, primarily through the OCLC-sponsored Intercat Project

Source

Journal of Internet cataloging. 2(1999) no.1, S.55-68

0.0025538085 = product of:
  0.0127690425 = sum of:
    0.0127690425 = weight(_text_:of in 5513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0127690425 = score(doc=5513,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 5513, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5513)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Provides an introductory overview to the subject of metadata, which considers why metadata issues are central to discussions about the evolution of library services-particularly digital library services-and why the cataloging community is, and should be, front and center in those discussions.

0.002345823 = product of:
  0.011729115 = sum of:
    0.011729115 = weight(_text_:of in 1439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011729115 = score(doc=1439,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.17955035 = fieldWeight in 1439, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1439)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The relationship between library catalogues and electronic resources differs from that between catalogues and physical materials, particularly with regard to cataloguing rules, which were originally designed to help users of card catalogues to find physical works on library shelves. However, these rules apply awkwardly to electronic resources because functionally different electronic works raise special cataloguinf issues. Discusses the problems of describing remote electronic resources in online catalogues with particular reference to the InterCat project: a nationwide experiment to create a database of Internet resources in MARC format, containing description, location and access information (including PURLs = Persitent URLs)). Concludes that descriptive information helps the user identify the works needed, but that it is practical to provide only minimal desriptive information for remote electronic resources in the catalogue record. To a limited extent, the access lost from reduced description can be replaced with new cataloguing techniques designed to stabilize the catalogue record

0.0022345826 = product of:
  0.011172912 = sum of:
    0.011172912 = weight(_text_:of in 1624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011172912 = score(doc=1624,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 1624, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1624)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Discusses a range of professional librarians' opinions on the urgent need either to adopt or replace the current cataloguing rules, a theme closely linked to the identity crisis facing libraries and librarians in the online electronic era. Topics examined include: Gorman and Oddy's views on restructuring AACR principles; the 13 metadata elements contained in the Dublin Core document (1995); catalogue search by known item; keyword search versus subject search; and the US Library of Congress's Program for cooperation cataloging

0.0022345826 = product of:
  0.011172912 = sum of:
    0.011172912 = weight(_text_:of in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011172912 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Examines international efforts to promote metadata as a common, interactive resource description tool for the Internet. These efforts centre on the Dublin Core Element Set, but include qualifiers such as those promoted by the Canberra Qualifiers. The LoC Network Development and MARC Standards Office maintains the Dublin Core / MARC / GILS (Government Information Location Standards) crosswalk which maps the common and correlative elements of each system. Describes current international initiatives and issues. Describes the Nordic metadata project which is aiming to create the basic elements of a metadata production and utilization system based on the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set. Describes the WWW consortium efforts in this area

0.0022345826 = product of:
  0.011172912 = sum of:
    0.011172912 = weight(_text_:of in 1887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011172912 = score(doc=1887,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 1887, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1887)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.0018058153 = product of:
  0.009029076 = sum of:
    0.009029076 = weight(_text_:of in 2207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009029076 = score(doc=2207,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 2207, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2207)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of Internet cataloging. 1(1998) no.3, S.15-45

0.0018058153 = product of:
  0.009029076 = sum of:
    0.009029076 = weight(_text_:of in 5504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009029076 = score(doc=5504,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 5504, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5504)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper covers the steps in building a metadata repository, including modeling the information needs of your community, selecting and adapting a metadata standard, documenting your metadata, populating the database, and sharing your metadata with other repositories and metadata initiatives. In addition, advances and options that can be applied to metadata for multimedia, particularly video, are presented.