Search (90 results, page 5 of 5)

0.001073034 = product of:
  0.005901687 = sum of:
    0.0031240587 = weight(_text_:a in 5513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0031240587 = score(doc=5513,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 5513, 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=5513)
    0.0027776284 = weight(_text_:s in 5513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027776284 = score(doc=5513,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 5513, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5513)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 36(2003) nos.3/4, S.19-29

Type

a

9.812339E-4 = product of:
  0.005396786 = sum of:
    0.0033135647 = weight(_text_:a in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033135647 = score(doc=5130,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = 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)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=5130,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 5130, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5130)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

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.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 54(2016) no.5/6, S.292-304

Type

a

9.3890476E-4 = product of:
  0.005163976 = sum of:
    0.0027335514 = weight(_text_:a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027335514 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Source

Journal of Internet cataloging. 1(1997) no.2, S.15-39

Type

a

9.3890476E-4 = product of:
  0.005163976 = sum of:
    0.0027335514 = weight(_text_:a in 967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027335514 = score(doc=967,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 967, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=967)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=967,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 967, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=967)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 29(2000) no.3, S.49-61

Type

a

9.3890476E-4 = product of:
  0.005163976 = sum of:
    0.0027335514 = weight(_text_:a in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027335514 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 36(2003) nos.3/4, S.141-153

Type

a

9.3890476E-4 = product of:
  0.005163976 = sum of:
    0.0027335514 = weight(_text_:a in 232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027335514 = score(doc=232,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 232, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=232)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=232,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 232, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=232)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 43(2006) no.2, S.3-17

Type

a

8.047755E-4 = product of:
  0.004426265 = sum of:
    0.0023430442 = weight(_text_:a in 3355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0023430442 = score(doc=3355,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3355, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3355)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 3355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=3355,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 3355, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3355)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Source

Knowledge organization. 37(2010) no.1, S.29-42

Type

a

7.6404476E-4 = product of:
  0.004202246 = sum of:
    0.0032202061 = weight(_text_:a in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0032202061 = score(doc=339,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.105052516 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
    9.8204E-4 = weight(_text_:s in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      9.8204E-4 = score(doc=339,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.033976175 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST. 58(2007) no.6., S.909-910 (A.D. Petrou): "A division in metadata definitions for physical objects vs. those for digital resources offered in Chapter 1 is punctuated by the use of broader, more inclusive metadata definitions, such as data about data as well as with the inclusion of more specific metadata definitions intended for networked resources. Intertwined with the book's subject matter, which is to "distinguish traditional cataloguing from metadata activity" (5), the authors' chosen metadata definition is also detailed on page 5 as follows: Thus while granting the validity of the inclusive definition, we concentrate primarily on metadata as it is most commonly thought of both inside and outside of the library community, as "structured information used to find, access, use and manage information resources primarily in a digital environment." (International Encyclopedia of Information and Library Science, 2003) Metadata principles discussed by the authors include modularity, extensibility, refinement and multilingualism. The latter set is followed by seven misconceptions about metadata. Two types of metadata discussed are automatically generated indexes and manually created records. In terms of categories of metadata, the authors present three sets of them as follows: descriptive, structural, and administrative metadata. Chapter 2 focuses on metadata for communities of practice, and is a prelude to content in Chapter 3 where metadata applications, use, and development are presented from the perspective of libraries. Chapter 2 discusses the emergence and impact of metadata on organization and access of online resources from the perspective of communities for which such standards exist and for the need for mapping one standard to another. Discussion focuses on metalanguages, such as Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) and eXtensible Markup Language (XML), "capable of embedding descriptive elements within the document markup itself' (25). This discussion falls under syntactic interoperability. For semantic interoperability, HTML and other mark-up languages, such as Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) and Computer Interchange of Museum Information (CIMI), are covered. For structural interoperability, Dublin Core's 15 metadata elements are grouped into three areas: content (title, subject, description, type, source, relation, and coverage), intellectual property (creator, publisher, contributor and rights), and instantiation (date, format, identifier, and language) for discussion.
Other selected specialized metadata element sets or schemas, such as Government Information Locator Service (GILS), are presented. Attention is brought to the different sets of elements and the need for linking up these elements across metadata schemes from a semantic point of view. It is no surprise, then, that after the presentation of additional specialized sets of metadata from the educational community and the arts sector, attention is turned to the discussion of Crosswalks between metadata element sets or the mapping of one metadata standard to another. Finally, the five appendices detailing elements found in Dublin Core, GILS, ARIADNE versions 3 and 3. 1, and Categories for the Description of Works of Art are an excellent addition to this chapter's focus on metadata and communities of practice. Chapters 3-6 provide an up-to-date account of the use of metadata standards in Libraries from the point of view of a community of practice. Some of the content standards included in these four chapters are AACR2, Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), and Library of Congress Subject Classification. In addition, uses of MARC along with planned implementations of the archival community's encoding scheme, EAD, are covered in detail. In a way, content in these chapters can be considered as a refresher course on the history, current state, importance, and usefulness of the above-mentioned standards in Libraries. Application of the standards is offered for various types of materials, such as monographic materials, continuing resources, and integrating library metadata into local catalogs and databases. A review of current digital library projects takes place in Chapter 7. While details about these projects tend to become out of date fast, the sections on issues and problems encountered in digital projects and successes and failures deserve any reader's close inspection. A suggested model is important enough to merit a specific mention below, in a short list format, as it encapsulates lessons learned from issues, problems, successes, and failures in digital projects. Before detailing the model, however, the various projects included in Chapter 7 should be mentioned. The projects are: Colorado Digitization Project, Cooperative Online Resource Catalog (an Office of Research project by OCLC, Inc.), California Digital Library, JSTOR, LC's National Digital Library Program and VARIATIONS.
Chapter 8 discusses issues of archiving and preserving digital materials. The chapter reiterates, "What is the point of all of this if the resources identified and catalogued are not preserved?" (Gorman, 2003, p. 16). Discussion about preservation and related issues is organized in five sections that successively ask why, what, who, how, and how much of the plethora of digital materials should be archived and preserved. These are not easy questions because of media instability and technological obsolescence. Stakeholders in communities with diverse interests compete in terms of which community or representative of a community has an authoritative say in what and how much get archived and preserved. In discussing the above-mentioned questions, the authors once again provide valuable information and lessons from a number of initiatives in Europe, Australia, and from other global initiatives. The Draft Charter on the Preservation of the Digital Heritage and the Guidelines for the Preservation of Digital Heritage, both published by UNESCO, are discussed and some of the preservation principles from the Guidelines are listed. The existing diversity in administrative arrangements for these new projects and resources notwithstanding, the impact on content produced for online reserves through work done in digital projects and from the use of metadata and the impact on levels of reference services and the ensuing need for different models to train users and staff is undeniable. In terms of education and training, formal coursework, continuing education, and informal and on-the-job training are just some of the available options. The intensity in resources required for cataloguing digital materials, the questions over the quality of digital resources, and the threat of the new digital environment to the survival of the traditional library are all issues quoted by critics and others, however, who are concerned about a balance for planning and resources allocated for traditional or print-based resources and newer digital resources. A number of questions are asked as part of the book's conclusions in Chapter 10. Of these questions, one that touches on all of the rest and upon much of the book's content is the question: What does the future hold for metadata in libraries? Metadata standards are alive and well in many communities of practice, as Chapters 2-6 have demonstrated. The usefulness of metadata continues to be high and innovation in various elements should keep information professionals engaged for decades to come. There is no doubt that metadata have had a tremendous impact in how we organize information for access and in terms of who, how, when, and where contact is made with library services and collections online. Planning and commitment to a diversity of metadata to serve the plethora of needs in communities of practice are paramount for the continued success of many digital projects and for online preservation of our digital heritage."

Pages

V, 262 S

5.635557E-4 = product of:
  0.0061991126 = sum of:
    0.0061991126 = weight(_text_:a in 3523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061991126 = score(doc=3523,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = 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)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

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

3.9690957E-4 = product of:
  0.0043660053 = sum of:
    0.0043660053 = weight(_text_:a in 3777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0043660053 = score(doc=3777,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 3777, 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=3777)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Abstract

Encoded Archival Description (EAD) is an international digital standard based on Extensible Markup Language (XML) for encoding descriptions of archival records. People living their lives as individuals, as members of families, and as members of corporate bodies create and assemble records that serve as instruments for carrying out or documenting the performance of activities. Based on the archival principles of respect des fonds (or provenance) and original order, archivists traditionally have treated all of the records created and assembled by one individual, family, or corporate body as a collection or fonds. Archivists describe records as an essential part of their responsibility for preserving and facilitating access to and use of archives. Archival description provides information essential for establishing the authenticity and completeness of fonds, and serves effective administration, discovery, access, and understanding of records. Traditionally archivists have described each fonds hierarchically in a single apparatus commonly called a finding aid. Until the advent of computing, finding aids were typically in printed form. In the 1990s, archivists created EAD, an encoding standard for archival description. EAD is based technologically on XML and intellectually on General International Standard Archival Description (ISAD(G)), a descriptive framework developed by the International Council of Archives (ICA). As with all standards, EAD will continue to develop in the future. Future changes to EAD will be influenced by ICA descriptive standards that complement ISAD(G) and encoding standards based on them that will complement EAD. This entry is organized into six sections: introduction, archival records, archival description, EAD, history, and future.

Type

a