Search (77 results, page 4 of 4)

2.972191E-4 = product of:
  0.005052725 = sum of:
    0.005052725 = weight(_text_:in in 2541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005052725 = score(doc=2541,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 2541, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2541)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Abstract

Reviews key developments in cataloguing Internet resources, surveys current problems and solutions, and surveys developments in the world of metadata

2.972191E-4 = product of:
  0.005052725 = sum of:
    0.005052725 = weight(_text_:in in 6863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005052725 = score(doc=6863,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 6863, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6863)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Abstract

At present cataloguing of Internet resources are on 2 levels. At level 1, the description of resources is contained in local library catalogues, along with bibliographic surrogates for all other materials that the library access, based on AACR2/MARC systems. At level 2, Internet resources are organized independently of any library agency. These include separate catalogues of selected resources, subject browsing lists and robot-generated search tools, and focus exclusively on Internet resources. A 3rd level needs to be developed - a metacatalogue - whereby a user can identify specific library catalogues to include in a search query of other Internet databases

2.972191E-4 = product of:
  0.005052725 = sum of:
    0.005052725 = weight(_text_:in in 5505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005052725 = score(doc=5505,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 5505, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5505)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Electronic cataloging: AACR2 and metadata for serials and monographs"

2.972191E-4 = product of:
  0.005052725 = sum of:
    0.005052725 = weight(_text_:in in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005052725 = score(doc=5509,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

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.

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Electronic cataloging: AACR2 and metadata for serials and monographs"

2.972191E-4 = product of:
  0.005052725 = sum of:
    0.005052725 = weight(_text_:in in 4160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005052725 = score(doc=4160,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 4160, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4160)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

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.

2.972191E-4 = product of:
  0.005052725 = sum of:
    0.005052725 = weight(_text_:in in 1887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005052725 = score(doc=1887,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 1887, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1887)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

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.

2.972191E-4 = product of:
  0.005052725 = sum of:
    0.005052725 = weight(_text_:in in 5160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005052725 = score(doc=5160,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 5160, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5160)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

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.

2.6001257E-4 = product of:
  0.004420214 = sum of:
    0.004420214 = weight(_text_:in in 1765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004420214 = score(doc=1765,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 1765, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1765)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

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.

2.5475924E-4 = product of:
  0.004330907 = sum of:
    0.004330907 = weight(_text_:in in 783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004330907 = score(doc=783,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 783, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=783)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Abstract

The complexity of cataloging manuscripts, particularly medieval manuscripts, has meant that these materials have remained largely inaccessible to the public. The quantity and quality of the descriptive data, the time and money it takes to catalog manuscripts, and the fragility of the materials themselves explain the dearth of searchable data on these valuable resources. Even when manuscripts have been cataloged, they have often been physically available only to a few elite scholars who are able to gain access to them. Certain institutions have embarked on projects to reverse this situation. This paper deals with three of these projects: the British Library's Digital Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts (DigCIM), a European consortium's database entitled Manuscripts And Letters Via Integrated Networks in Europe (MALVINE), and Columbia University's Digital Scriptorium (DS). The author explores the history of each project, compares the metadata utilized by each one through the creation of a crosswalk, and analyzes the usefulness of these catalogs to the user.

2.5475924E-4 = product of:
  0.004330907 = sum of:
    0.004330907 = weight(_text_:in in 4165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004330907 = score(doc=4165,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 4165, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4165)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

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.

2.5475924E-4 = product of:
  0.004330907 = sum of:
    0.004330907 = weight(_text_:in in 2883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004330907 = score(doc=2883,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 2883, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2883)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

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.

2.401893E-4 = product of:
  0.004083218 = sum of:
    0.004083218 = weight(_text_:in in 7199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004083218 = score(doc=7199,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 7199, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7199)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Abstract

Describes key events in the development of cataloguing of Internet resources and ssurveys current activities. The fundamental questions are: are Internet resources worth cataloguing; is traditional MARC/AACR2 cataloguing appropriate for Internet resources; and how should resources that change location be dealt with? Libraries should start by cataloguing an Internet resource. Bibliographic records can be used to drive Web applications. Metadata holds considerable promise

2.401893E-4 = product of:
  0.004083218 = sum of:
    0.004083218 = weight(_text_:in in 2561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004083218 = score(doc=2561,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 2561, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2561)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Abstract

Introduces a special section on organizing Internet resources. Approaches based on fulltext indexing of the content of Internet sites are not an adequate solution for providing access to Internet resources. Adding metadata can provide an overview of a subject area and improve the user's ability to discriminate among similar sources. Introduces the articles in this section that explore issues associated with the provision of metadata

2.401893E-4 = product of:
  0.004083218 = sum of:
    0.004083218 = weight(_text_:in in 933) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004083218 = score(doc=933,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 933, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=933)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

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

2.401893E-4 = product of:
  0.004083218 = sum of:
    0.004083218 = weight(_text_:in in 1906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004083218 = score(doc=1906,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 1906, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1906)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

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.

2.1016564E-4 = product of:
  0.0035728158 = sum of:
    0.0035728158 = weight(_text_:in in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035728158 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

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

1.8014197E-4 = product of:
  0.0030624135 = sum of:
    0.0030624135 = weight(_text_:in in 2222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0030624135 = score(doc=2222,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 2222, 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=2222)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Abstract

Describes the structure of metadata formats with particular reference to the taxonomy of data formats set out by the BIBLINK report of the UK Office for Library and Information Networking and based on their underlying complexity. Referes to 3 main types of metadata: Dublin Core; MARC and Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). Provides practical examples of the actual codings used, illustrated with reference to the Dublin Core, Marc and FGDC elements in selected Web sites. Ends with a glossary and a list of Web sites containing background information on metadata, such as the IAMSLIC metadata homepage