Search (158 results, page 2 of 8)

  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Jacob, E.K.; Albrechtsen, H.; George, N.: Empirical analysis and evaluation of a metadata scheme for representing pedagogical resources in a digital library for educators (2006) 0.07 
    0.07290597 = product of:
  0.14581195 = sum of:
    0.0895439 = weight(_text_:digital in 2518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0895439 = score(doc=2518,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.4529128 = fieldWeight in 2518, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2518)
    0.05626805 = weight(_text_:library in 2518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05626805 = score(doc=2518,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.42695788 = fieldWeight in 2518, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2518)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This paper introduces the Just-in-Time Teaching (JiTT) digital library and describes the pedagogical nature of the resources that make up this library for educators. Because resources in this library are stored in the form of metadata records, the utility of the metadata scheme, its elements and its relationships is central to the ability of the library to address the pedagogical needs of instructors in the work domain of the classroom. The analytic framework provided by cognitive work analysis (CWA) is proposed as an innovative approach for evaluating the effectiveness of the JiTT metadata scheme. CWA is also discussed as an approach to assessing the ability of this extensive networked library to create a common digital environment that fosters cooperation and collaboration among instructors.
  2. Sutton, S.A.; Golder, D.: Achievement Standards Network (ASN) : an application profile for mapping K-12 educational resources to achievement (2008) 0.07 
    0.07128137 = product of:
  0.095041834 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 2636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=2636,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 2636, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2636)
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 2636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=2636,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 2636, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2636)
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 2636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=2636,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2636, 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=2636)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    This paper describes metadata development of an application profile for the National Science Digital Library (NSDL) Achievement Standards Network (ASN) in the United States. The ASN is a national repository of machine-readable achievement standards modeled in RDF that shape teaching and learning in the various states. We describe the nature of the ASN metadata and the various uses to which that metadata is applied including the alignment of the standards of one state to those of another and the correlation of those standards to educational resources in support of resource discovery and retrieval.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  3. Blanchi, C.; Petrone, J.: Distributed interoperable metadata registry (2001) 0.07 
    0.07118432 = product of:
  0.14236864 = sum of:
    0.10446788 = weight(_text_:digital in 1228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10446788 = score(doc=1228,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.5283983 = fieldWeight in 1228, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1228)
    0.03790077 = weight(_text_:library in 1228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03790077 = score(doc=1228,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 1228, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1228)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Interoperability between digital libraries depends on effective sharing of metadata. Successful sharing of metadata requires common standards for metadata exchange. Previous efforts have focused on either defining a single metadata standard, such as Dublin Core, or building digital library middleware, such as Z39.50 or Stanford's Digital Library Interoperability Protocol. In this article, we propose a distributed architecture for managing metadata and metadata schema. Instead of normalizing all metadata and schema to a single format, we have focused on building a middleware framework that tolerates heterogeneity. By providing facilities for typing and dynamic conversion of metadata, our system permits continual introduction of new forms of metadata with minimal impact on compatibility.
  4. Cole, T.W..: Using OAI : innovations in the sharing of information (2003) 0.07 
    0.06794138 = product of:
  0.13588277 = sum of:
    0.10339639 = weight(_text_:digital in 4766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10339639 = score(doc=4766,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.52297866 = fieldWeight in 4766, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4766)
    0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 4766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032486375 = score(doc=4766,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 4766, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4766)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The tradition of union catalogs and similar broad-based, comprehensive bibliographic utilities and tools is one of long standing in the discipline of librarianship. As we move towards greater reliance on digital primary sources, the sharing of information about what we hold in our digital collections intuitively seems of increasing import and value as a way to organize and manage the explosion of online information resources. The Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting enables effective and efficient sharing of digital metadata and is being utilized across a wide spectrum of disciplines and digital library projects. Experience to date gives reason for optimism and provides evidence and confirmation that, even as the technologies we use evolve, the intellectual framework of our tradition persists and continues to be relevant.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 21(2003) no.2, S.115-117
  5. Humphrey, J.: Manuscripts and metadata : Descriptive metadata in three manuscript catalogs: DigCIM, MALVINE, & Digital Scriptorium (2007) 0.07 
    0.06649769 = product of:
  0.13299538 = sum of:
    0.10339639 = weight(_text_:digital in 783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10339639 = score(doc=783,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.52297866 = fieldWeight in 783, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=783)
    0.029598987 = product of:
      0.059197973 = sum of:
        0.059197973 = weight(_text_:project in 783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059197973 = score(doc=783,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 783, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=783)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
    Object
    Digital Scriptorium
  6. McCallum, S.H.: Preservation metadata standards for digital resources : what we have and what we need (2005) 0.06 
    0.06318387 = product of:
  0.12636773 = sum of:
    0.10339639 = weight(_text_:digital in 4353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10339639 = score(doc=4353,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.52297866 = fieldWeight in 4353, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4353)
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 4353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=4353,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 4353, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4353)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    A key component for the successful preservation of digital resources is going to be the metadata that enables automated preservation processes to take place. The number of digital items will preclude human handling and the fact that these resources are electronic makes them logical for computer driven preservation activities. Over the last decade there have been a number of digital repository experiments that took different approaches, developed and used different data models, and generally moved our understanding forward. This paper reports on a recent initiative, PREMIS, that builds upon concepts and experience to date. It merits careful testing to see if the metadata identified can be used generally and become a foundation for more detailed metadata. And how much more will be needed for preservation activities? Initiatives for additional technical metadata and document format registries are also discussed.
    Footnote
    Vortrag, World Library and Information Congress: 71th IFLA General Conference and Council "Libraries - A voyage of discovery", August 14th - 18th 2005, Oslo, Norway.
  7. Bekaert, J.; Van de Ville, D.; Rogge, B.; Strauven, I.; Kooning, E. de; Van de Walle, R.: Metadata-based access to multimedia architectural and historical archive collections : a review (2002) 0.06 
    0.06318387 = product of:
  0.12636773 = sum of:
    0.10339639 = weight(_text_:digital in 689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10339639 = score(doc=689,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.52297866 = fieldWeight in 689, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=689)
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=689,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 689, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=689)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This review is a summary of the state-of-the-art for those who have not been intimately dealing with the evolution of digital archives. At the same time this survey will be a useful resource and starting point for archivists, librarians and technicians, who are becoming involved in institutional digitization projects. It presents a brief overview of what is meant by a digital library and a digital archive, and how archival collections can be described. It expresses briefly the different approaches to collections and their descriptions and suggests that a consistent approach to descriptions at collection and item level is an important factor in initiatives which seek to provide integrated access to distributed resources, whether those resources are traditional or digital.
  8. Greenberg, J.: Metadata and digital information (2009) 0.06 
    0.06318387 = product of:
  0.12636773 = sum of:
    0.10339639 = weight(_text_:digital in 4697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10339639 = score(doc=4697,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.52297866 = fieldWeight in 4697, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4697)
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 4697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=4697,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 4697, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4697)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The range of metadata activity over this last decade is both extensive and astonishing, and substantiates metadata as an integral part of our digital information infrastructure. This entry begins with a brief history of metadata relating to digital information, followed by an overview of different metadata types, functions, and domain-specific definitions. Next, the family of standards comprising a metadata architecture are defined, followed by an overview of metadata generation processes, applications, and people: this latter section gives particular attention to automatic metadata generation approaches. The following section explores four key metadata models. The conclusion summarizes the entry, highlights a number of significant metadata challenges, and notes efforts underway to address metadata challenges in the new millennium.
    Content
    Digital unter: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS3-120044415. Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  9. Wen, D.; Sakaguchi, T.; Sugimoto, S.; Tabata, K.: Multilingual Access to Dublin Core Metadata of ULIS Library (2002) 0.06 
    0.062224608 = product of:
  0.124449216 = sum of:
    0.086163655 = weight(_text_:digital in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.086163655 = score(doc=2342,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.4358155 = fieldWeight in 2342, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2342)
    0.03828556 = weight(_text_:library in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03828556 = score(doc=2342,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 2342, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2342)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Source
    Journal of digital information. 2(2002) no.2,
  10. Patton, M.; Reynolds, D.; Choudhury, G.S.; DiLauro, T.: Toward a metadata generation framework : a case study at Johns Hopkins University (2004) 0.06 
    0.05752562 = product of:
  0.11505124 = sum of:
    0.0844228 = weight(_text_:digital in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0844228 = score(doc=1192,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.42701027 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=1192,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In the June 2003 issue of D-Lib Magazine, Kenney et al. (2003) discuss a comparative study between Cornell's email reference staff and Google's Answers service. This interesting study provided insights on the potential impact of "computing and simple algorithms combined with human intelligence" for library reference services. As mentioned in the Kenney et al. article, Bill Arms (2000) had discussed the possibilities of automated digital libraries in an even earlier D-Lib article. Arms discusses not only automating reference services, but also another library function that seems to inspire lively debates about automation-metadata creation. While intended to illuminate, these debates sometimes generate more heat than light. In an effort to explore the potential for automating metadata generation, the Digital Knowledge Center (DKC) of the Sheridan Libraries at The Johns Hopkins University developed and tested an automated name authority control (ANAC) tool. ANAC represents a component of a digital workflow management system developed in connection with the digital Lester S. Levy Collection of Sheet Music. The evaluation of ANAC followed the spirit of the Kenney et al. study that was, as they stated, "more exploratory than scientific." These ANAC evaluation results are shared with the hope of fostering constructive dialogue and discussions about the potential for semi-automated techniques or frameworks for library functions and services such as metadata creation. The DKC's research agenda emphasizes the development of tools that combine automated processes and human intervention, with the overall goal of involving humans at higher levels of analysis and decision-making. Others have looked at issues regarding the automated generation of metadata. A session at the 2003 Joint Conference on Digital Libraries was devoted to automatic metadata creation, and a session at the 2004 conference addressed automated name disambiguation. Commercial vendors such as OCLC, Marcive, and LTI have long used automated techniques for matching names to Library of Congress authority records. We began developing ANAC as a component of a larger suite of open source tools to support workflow management for digital projects. This article describes the goals for the ANAC tool, provides an overview of the metadata records used for testing, describes the architecture for ANAC, and concludes with discussions of the methodology and evaluation of the experiment comparing human cataloging and ANAC-generated results.
  11. Suleman, H.; Fox, E.A.: Leveraging OAI harvesting to disseminate theses (2003) 0.06 
    0.05644991 = product of:
  0.11289982 = sum of:
    0.073112294 = weight(_text_:digital in 4779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073112294 = score(doc=4779,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.36980176 = fieldWeight in 4779, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4779)
    0.039787523 = weight(_text_:library in 4779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039787523 = score(doc=4779,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 4779, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4779)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    NDLTD, the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, supports and encourages the production and archiving of electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs). While many current NDLTD member institutions and consortia have individual collections accessible online, there has until recently been no single mechanism to aggregate all ETDs to provide NDLTD-wide services (e.g. searching). With the emergence of the Open Archives Initiative (OAI), that has changed. The OAI's Protocol for Metadata Harvesting is a robust interoperability solution that defines a standard method of exchanging metadata. While working with the OAI to develop and test the metadata harvesting standard, we have set up and actively maintain a central NDLTD metadata collection and multiple user portals. We discuss in this article our experiences in building this distributed digital library based upon the work of the OAI.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 21(2003) no.2, S.219-227
  12. Schottlaender, B.E.C.: Why metadata? Why now? Why me? (2003) 0.06 
    0.056123044 = product of:
  0.11224609 = sum of:
    0.068930924 = weight(_text_:digital in 5513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068930924 = score(doc=5513,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34865242 = fieldWeight in 5513, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5513)
    0.043315165 = weight(_text_:library in 5513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043315165 = score(doc=5513,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 5513, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5513)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
  13. Greenberg, J.: Metadata generation : processes, people and tools (2003) 0.05 
    0.05419812 = product of:
  0.10839624 = sum of:
    0.068930924 = weight(_text_:digital in 1251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068930924 = score(doc=1251,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34865242 = fieldWeight in 1251, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1251)
    0.039465316 = product of:
      0.07893063 = sum of:
        0.07893063 = weight(_text_:project in 1251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07893063 = score(doc=1251,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.37308553 = fieldWeight in 1251, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Metadata generation is the act of creating or producing metadata. Generating good quality metadata in an efficient manner is essential for organizing and making accessible the growing number of rich resources available an the Web. The success of digital libraries, the sustenance of interoperability - as promoted by the Open Archives Initiative - and the evolution of Semantic Web all rely an efficient metadata generation. This article sketches a metadata generation framework that involves processes, people and tools. It also presents selected research initiatives and highlights the goals of the Metadata Generation Research Project.
  14. Borbinha, J.: Authority control in the world of metadata (2004) 0.05 
    0.052799337 = product of:
  0.10559867 = sum of:
    0.073112294 = weight(_text_:digital in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073112294 = score(doc=5666,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.36980176 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
    0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032486375 = score(doc=5666,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses the concept of "metadata" in the scope of the "digital library," two terms recently used in a great diversity of perspectives. It is not the intent to promote privilege of any particular view, but rather to help provide a better understanding of these multiple perspectives. The paper starts with a discussion of the concept of digital library, followed by an analysis of the concept of metadata. It continues with a discussion about the relationship of this concept with technology, services, and scenarios of application. The concluding remarks stress the three main arguments assumed for the relevance of the concept of metadata: the growing number of heterogeneous genres of information resources, the new emerging scenarios for interoperability, and issues related to the cost and complexity of current technology.
  15. Robertson, R.J.: Metadata quality : implications for library and information science professionals (2005) 0.05 
    0.050255083 = product of:
  0.100510165 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 4737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=4737,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 4737, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4737)
    0.057428338 = weight(_text_:library in 4737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057428338 = score(doc=4737,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.43576205 = fieldWeight in 4737, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4737)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - In contrast with recent studies noting the necessity of library and information science (LIS) skills in digital library and repository projects, this study aims to examine the impact of metadata quality requirements on how LIS professionals apply their skills outside a library setting. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reviews the concept of metadata quality and examines the implications of this for LIS professionals by reviewing the differences between the context of the library community and other relevant communities of practice. Findings - The paper argues that, although much needed, LIS skills require contextualisation before application outside library settings. Research limitations/implications - Many of the new opportunities for and settings of LIS skills are immature - consequently this analysis may date as the context of these settings mature. Current trends, however, suggest that it will not. Practical implications - Training in LIS skills should take account of how they might apply differently outside libraries. Librarians co-operating with colleagues outside the library should appreciate the potential metadata "compromises" they might have to make and why they are necessary. Originality/value - The paper provides food for thought on the increasing number of LIS professionals working outside library settings.
    Source
    Library review. 54(2005) no.5, S.295-300
  16. Jun, W.: ¬A knowledge network constructed by integrating classification, thesaurus and metadata in a digital library (2003) 0.05 
    0.049779683 = product of:
  0.09955937 = sum of:
    0.068930924 = weight(_text_:digital in 1254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068930924 = score(doc=1254,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34865242 = fieldWeight in 1254, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1254)
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 1254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=1254,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 1254, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1254)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Knowledge management in digital libraries is a universal problem. Keyword-based searching is applied everywhere no matter whether the resources are indexed databases or full-text Web pages. In keyword matching, the valuable content description and indexing of the metadata, such as the subject descriptors and the classification notations, are merely treated as common keywords to be matched with the user query. Without the support of vocabulary control tools, such as classification systems and thesauri, the intelligent labor of content analysis, description and indexing in metadata production are seriously wasted. New retrieval paradigms are needed to exploit the potential of the metadata resources. Could classification and thesauri, which contain the condensed intelligence of generations of librarians, be used in a digital library to organize the networked information, especially metadata, to facilitate their usability and change the digital library into a knowledge management environment? To examine that question, we designed and implemented a new paradigm that incorporates a classification system, a thesaurus and metadata. The classification and the thesaurus are merged into a concept network, and the metadata are distributed into the nodes of the concept network according to their subjects. The abstract concept node instantiated with the related metadata records becomes a knowledge node. A coherent and consistent knowledge network is thus formed. It is not only a framework for resource organization but also a structure for knowledge navigation, retrieval and learning. We have built an experimental system based on the Chinese Classification and Thesaurus, which is the most comprehensive and authoritative in China, and we have incorporated more than 5000 bibliographic records in the computing domain from the Peking University Library. The result is encouraging. In this article, we review the tools, the architecture and the implementation of our experimental system, which is called Vision.
  17. Seadle, M.: METS and the metadata marketplace (2002) 0.05 
    0.049779683 = product of:
  0.09955937 = sum of:
    0.068930924 = weight(_text_:digital in 1779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068930924 = score(doc=1779,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34865242 = fieldWeight in 1779, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1779)
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 1779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=1779,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 1779, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1779)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    One purpose of the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) is to deal with the multiplication of metadata types in recent years, and especially metadata that deal with non-paper materials, including audiovisual sources and their digital representations. In that sense, it is a kind of meta-metadata. But is it needed? Market forces may decide.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 20(2002) no.3, S.255-257
  18. Lightle, K.S.; Ridgway, J.S.: Generation of XML records across multiple metadata standards (2003) 0.05 
    0.049779683 = product of:
  0.09955937 = sum of:
    0.068930924 = weight(_text_:digital in 2189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068930924 = score(doc=2189,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34865242 = fieldWeight in 2189, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2189)
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 2189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=2189,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 2189, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2189)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This paper describes the process that Eisenhower National Clearinghouse (ENC) staff went through to develop crosswalks between metadata based on three different standards and the generation of the corresponding XML records. ENC needed to generate different flavors of XML records so that metadata would be displayed correctly in catalog records generated through different digital library interfaces. The crosswalk between USMARC, IEEE LOM, and DC-ED is included, as well as examples of the XML records.
  19. Gömpel, R.; Altenhöner, R.; Kunz, M.; Oehlschläger, S.; Werner, C.: Weltkongress Bibliothek und Information, 70. IFLA-Generalkonferenz in Buenos Aires : Aus den Veranstaltungen der Division IV Bibliographic Control, der Core Activities ICABS und UNIMARC sowie der Information Technology Section (2004) 0.05 
    0.04785707 = product of:
  0.063809425 = sum of:
    0.017232731 = weight(_text_:digital in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017232731 = score(doc=2874,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.087163106 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
    0.0132625075 = weight(_text_:library in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0132625075 = score(doc=2874,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.10063494 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
    0.03331419 = sum of:
      0.019732658 = weight(_text_:project in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019732658 = score(doc=2874,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050121464 = queryNorm
          0.09327138 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
      0.013581533 = weight(_text_:22 in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013581533 = score(doc=2874,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050121464 = queryNorm
          0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    "Libraries: Tools for Education and Development" war das Motto der 70. IFLA-Generalkonferenz, dem Weltkongress Bibliothek und Information, der vom 22.-27. August 2004 in Buenos Aires, Argentinien, und damit erstmals in Lateinamerika stattfand. Rund 3.000 Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmer, davon ein Drittel aus spanischsprachigen Ländern, allein 600 aus Argentinien, besuchten die von der IFLA und dem nationalen Organisationskomitee gut organisierte Tagung mit mehr als 200 Sitzungen und Veranstaltungen. Aus Deutschland waren laut Teilnehmerverzeichnis leider nur 45 Kolleginnen und Kollegen angereist, womit ihre Zahl wieder auf das Niveau von Boston gesunken ist. Erfreulicherweise gab es nunmehr bereits im dritten Jahr eine deutschsprachige Ausgabe des IFLA-Express. Auch in diesem Jahr soll hier über die Veranstaltungen der Division IV Bibliographic Control berichtet werden. Die Arbeit der Division mit ihren Sektionen Bibliography, Cataloguing, Classification and Indexing sowie der neuen Sektion Knowledge Management bildet einen der Schwerpunkte der IFLA-Arbeit, die dabei erzielten konkreten Ergebnisse und Empfehlungen haben maßgeblichen Einfluss auf die tägliche Arbeit der Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. Erstmals wird auch ausführlich über die Arbeit der Core Activities ICABS und UNIMARC und der Information Technology Section berichtet.
    Content
    Cataloguing Section (Sektion Katalogisierung) Der Schwerpunkt der Arbeit dieser Sektion liegt auf der Erarbeitung bzw. internationalen Harmonisierung von Strukturen, Regeln und Arbeitsverfahren mit dem Ziel, die internationale Kooperation im Katalogisierungsbereich zu verbessern. In Anbetracht des laufenden Evaluierungsprozesses wurde der Strategieplan der Sektion zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt nur dort aktualisiert, wo es unbedingt erforderlich war. Neue Ziele wurden nicht aufgenommen. Oberste Priorität bei den strategischen Zielen behielt die Entwicklung internationaler Katalogisierungsstandards für die bibliographische Beschreibung und den Zugriff. In ihrer zentralen Bedeutung bestätigt wurden auch die "Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records" (FRBR). Darüber hinaus gehört auch in Zukunft die Weiterentwicklung und Revision der ISBDs zu den zentralen Anliegen der Arbeit der Sektion Katalogisierung. Ein weiteres vorrangiges Ziel bleibt die Erarbeitung von Standards, Regeln und Informationslisten, um den Zugang zu bibliographischen Daten in allen Sprachen zu ermöglichen. Hierzu zählen u. a.: - die vollständige Veröffentlichung der Anonymous Classics: Der Teil für europäische Literatur ist inzwischen veröffentlicht'. Für die Erarbeitung weiterer Teile (Lateinamerika, Afrika und Asien) soll das Verfahren gestrafft und ein Zeitplan erstellt werden. - die Beobachtung der Aktivitäten zu Unicode und die Information der Sektionsmitglieder darüber zur Förderung des mehrsprachigen Zugangs zu bibliographischer Information - die Entwicklung eines web-basierten multilingualen Wörterbuchs für Katalogisierungsbegriffe - die Entwicklung und der Test von (Daten-)Modellen für eine virtuelle internationale Normdatei - die Überarbeitung der "IFLA Names of persons". Das Open Programme der Sektion stand in diesem Jahr unter dem Motto "Developments in Cataloguing Guidelines" und wurde von Barbara Tillett, Lynne Howarth und Carol van Nuys bestritten. Lynne Howarth ging in ihrem Vortrag "Enabling metadata: creating a core record for resource discovery" auf die Reaktionen im weltweiten Stellungnahmeverfahren auf die Veröffentlichung des Papiers "Guidance an the Structure, Content and Application of Metadata Records for digital resources and collections" der Working Group an the Use of Metadata Schemes ein. Carol van Nuys stellte das norwegische "Paradigma Project and its quest for metadata solutions and services" vor.
    Classification and Indexing Section (Sektion Klassifikation und Indexierung) Die Working Group an Guidelines for Multilingual Thesauri hat ihre Arbeit abgeschlossen, die Richtlinien werden Ende 2004 im IFLAnet zur Verfügung stehen. Die 2003 ins Leben gerufene Arbeitsgruppe zu Mindeststandards der Inhaltserschließung in Nationalbibliographien hat sich in Absprache mit den Mitgliedern des Standing Committee auf den Namen "Guidelines for minimal requirements for subject access by national bibliographic agencies" verständigt. Als Grundlage der zukünftigen Arbeit soll der "Survey an Subject Heading Languages Used in National Libraries and Bibliographies" von Magda HeinerFreiling dienen. Davon ausgehend soll eruiert werden, welche Arten von Medienwerken mit welchen Instrumentarien und in welcher Tiefe erschlossen werden. Eine weitere Arbeitsgruppe der Sektion befasst sich mit dem sachlichen Zugriff auf Netzpublikationen (Working Group an Subject Access to Web Resources). Die Veranstaltung "Implementation and adaption of global tools for subject access to local needs" fand regen Zuspruch. Drei Vortragende zeigten auf, wie in ihrem Sprachgebiet die Subject Headings der Library of Congress (LoC) übernommen werden (Development of a Spanish subject heading list und Subject indexing in Sweden) bzw. wie sich die Zusammenarbeit mit der LoC gestalten lässt, um den besonderen terminologischen Bedürfnissen eines Sprach- und Kulturraums außerhalb der USA Rechnung zu tragen (The SACO Program in Latin America). Aus deutscher Sicht verdiente der Vortrag "Subject indexing between international standards and local context - the Italian case" besondere Beachtung. Die Entwicklung eines Regelwerks zur verbalen Sacherschließung und die Erarbeitung einer italienischen Schlagwortnormdatei folgen nämlich erklärtermaßen der deutschen Vorgehensweise mit RSWK und SWD.
    Projekt "Mapping ISBDs to FRBR" Die Deutsche Bibliothek und die British Library haben im Rahmen ihrer jeweiligen Zuständigkeiten innerhalb von ICABS gemeinsam das Projekt "Mapping ISBDs to FRBR" finanziert. Beide Bibliotheken unterstützen damit die strategischen Ziele der IFLA-CDNL Allianz für bibliographische Standards. Die Deutsche Bibliothek ist innerhalb der Allianz verantwortlich für die Unterstützung der Pflege und Weiterentwicklung der ISBD, während die British Library für die Unterstützung von Pflege und Entwicklung der FRBR zuständig ist. Für die Durchführung des Projekts konnte Tom Delsey gewonnen werden, der federführender Autor der FRBR ist und Beiträge zu vielen verschiedenen Aspekten der ISBDs geliefert hat. Das Ergebnis seiner Arbeit "Mapping ISBD Elements to FRBR Entity Attributes and Relationships" steht im IFLAnet zur VerFügung (http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/pubs/ISBD-FRBR-mappingFinal.pdf).
  20. Poulter, A.: Metaviews: metadata research and teaching in the United Kingdom and Ireland (2003) 0.05 
    0.047041588 = product of:
  0.094083175 = sum of:
    0.060926907 = weight(_text_:digital in 1996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060926907 = score(doc=1996,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 1996, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1996)
    0.033156272 = weight(_text_:library in 1996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033156272 = score(doc=1996,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 1996, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1996)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Although research and teaching can (and should) be seen as international, there must also be an underlying national focus, based on the structure of higher education in a particular country and a corresponding unique pattern of teaching and research. This column therefore looks at research and teaching in metadata in the UK and Ireland, since I work at Strathclyde University in the UK that teaches and researches metadata. This column illustrates that, indeed, the current state of research and teaching in metadata is currently healthy in the UK and Ireland. There are a variety or research activities related to metadata taking place. These range from metadata for digital preservation through 'mainstream' metadata applications in library and information work to contributing to work an the semantic web itself. Among the leading organisational foci of metadata research in the UK are: - the Metadata Group at UKOLN (formerly the UK Office of Library and Information Networking) at the University of Bath (http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/) - the Semantic Web Research Group at the Institute for Learning and Research Technology (ILRT) at the University of Bristol (http://www.ilrt.bristol.ac.uk/discovery/) - the Centre for Digital Library Research (CDLR) at the University of Strathclyde (http://cdlr.strath.ac.uk/).

Authors

Languages

  • e 149
  • d 8
  • chi 1
  • More… Less…

Types

Themes