Search (95 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Renear, A.H.; Wickett, K.M.; Urban, R.J.; Dubin, D.; Shreeves, S.L.: Collection/item metadata relationships (2008) 0.01 
    0.005155518 = product of:
  0.020622073 = sum of:
    0.012270111 = product of:
      0.03681033 = sum of:
        0.03681033 = weight(_text_:problem in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03681033 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.008351962 = product of:
      0.025055885 = sum of:
        0.025055885 = weight(_text_:22 in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025055885 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2623, 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=2623)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Contemporary retrieval systems, which search across collections, usually ignore collection-level metadata. Alternative approaches, exploiting collection-level information, will require an understanding of the various kinds of relationships that can obtain between collection-level and item-level metadata. This paper outlines the problem and describes a project that is developing a logic-based framework for classifying collection/item metadata relationships. This framework will support (i) metadata specification developers defining metadata elements, (ii) metadata creators describing objects, and (iii) system designers implementing systems that take advantage of collection-level metadata. We present three examples of collection/item metadata relationship categories, attribute/value-propagation, value-propagation, and value-constraint and show that even in these simple cases a precise formulation requires modal notions in addition to first-order logic. These formulations are related to recent work in information retrieval and ontology evaluation.
    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
  2. Jun, W.: ¬A knowledge network constructed by integrating classification, thesaurus and metadata in a digital library (2003) 0.00 
    0.0034496475 = product of:
  0.01379859 = sum of:
    0.008180073 = product of:
      0.02454022 = sum of:
        0.02454022 = weight(_text_:problem in 1254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02454022 = score(doc=1254,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.1875815 = fieldWeight in 1254, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1254)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0056185164 = product of:
      0.016855549 = sum of:
        0.016855549 = weight(_text_:29 in 1254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016855549 = score(doc=1254,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 1254, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1254)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    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.
    Source
    Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 29(2003) no.2, S.24-28
  3. Cwiok, J.: ¬The defining element : a discussion of the creator element within metadata schemas (2005) 0.00 
    0.0034496475 = product of:
  0.01379859 = sum of:
    0.008180073 = product of:
      0.02454022 = sum of:
        0.02454022 = weight(_text_:problem in 5732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02454022 = score(doc=5732,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.1875815 = fieldWeight in 5732, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5732)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0056185164 = product of:
      0.016855549 = sum of:
        0.016855549 = weight(_text_:29 in 5732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016855549 = score(doc=5732,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 5732, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5732)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    The speed with change takes place is startling and has left the information community with little time to consider how the development of electronic resources and the metadata schemas created to describe them effect how we view a work and its components. In terms of the attribution of authorship in the context of electronic works, this is a salient point. How does one determine authorship of a complex electronic resource, which is the culmination of the work of a myriad of entities? How does one determine the authorship when the content of the electronic resource may change at any moment without warning? What is the semantic content of the element that denotes authorship or responsibility for an electronic resource and how does the term used determine the element's meaning? The conceptual difficulty in the definition of the Creator element is deciphering what exactly the metadata schema should be describing. We also need to establish what purpose the element is intended to serve. In essence, we are at a crossroads. It is clear that once a work is digitized it exists in a significantly different medium, but how do we provide access to it? It is necessary to critically assess the accuracy of digital surrogates and to note that webmasters have a significant amount of intellectual responsibility invested in the sites they create. The solution to the problem in the Creator element may lie in moving from the concept of "authorship" and "origination" to a concept of intellectual responsibility. Perhaps the problematic nature of the Creator element allows us to move forward in our assessment and treatment of knowledge. One solution may be to standardize the definitions within various element sets. As the semantic web continues to grow and librarians strive to catalog electronic resources, the establishment of standard definitions for elements is becoming more relevant and important.
    Date
    29. 9.2008 19:13:46
  4. Andresen, L.: Metadata in Denmark (2000) 0.00 
    0.0027839874 = product of:
  0.0222719 = sum of:
    0.0222719 = product of:
      0.0668157 = sum of:
        0.0668157 = weight(_text_:22 in 4899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0668157 = score(doc=4899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4899, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4899)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Date
    16. 7.2000 20:58:22
  5. Granger, S.: Metadata and digital preservation : a plea for cross-interest collaboration (2000) 0.00 
    0.0024581011 = product of:
  0.01966481 = sum of:
    0.01966481 = product of:
      0.058994424 = sum of:
        0.058994424 = weight(_text_:29 in 4900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058994424 = score(doc=4900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 4900, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4900)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Source
    Vine. 2000, no.117, S.24-29
  6. Siripan, P.: Metadata and trends of cataloguing in Thai libraries (2000) 0.00 
    0.0024581011 = product of:
  0.01966481 = sum of:
    0.01966481 = product of:
      0.058994424 = sum of:
        0.058994424 = weight(_text_:29 in 6338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058994424 = score(doc=6338,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 6338, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6338)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Source
    International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 29(2000) no.2, S.33-35
  7. Moen, W.E.: ¬The metadata approach to accessing government information (2001) 0.00 
    0.002435989 = product of:
  0.019487912 = sum of:
    0.019487912 = product of:
      0.058463734 = sum of:
        0.058463734 = weight(_text_:22 in 4407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058463734 = score(doc=4407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4407, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4407)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Date
    28. 3.2002 9:22:34
  8. Polydoratou, P.; Nicholas, D.: Familiarity with and use of metadata formats and metadata registries amongst those working in diverse professional communities within the information sector (2001) 0.00 
    0.0021690698 = product of:
  0.017352559 = sum of:
    0.017352559 = product of:
      0.052057672 = sum of:
        0.052057672 = weight(_text_:problem in 695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052057672 = score(doc=695,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.39792046 = fieldWeight in 695, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=695)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Metadata registries are considered to be a solution to the problem of ata sharing and standardising of information on the Internet. The International Organization for Information recognised the need for a standardised approach to this problem and produce ISO/IEC 11179 Information Technology - Specification and standardisation of data elements. As part of an ongoing research project on the ISO/IEC 11179 metadata registries implementation a questionnaire survey was carried out on four discussion lists an the EU funded SCHEMAS 2nd workshop (23-24th November 2000). Results from this survey, which was essentially aiming to identify how familiar people were with metadata and metadata registries, are presented along with a brief introduction to the ISO/IEC 11179 Information Technology - Specification and standardisation of data elements standard.
  9. Tennis, J.T.: 6th Annual Open Forum on Metadata Registries : Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, Jan 20-24, 2003 (2002) 0.00 
    0.0021069439 = product of:
  0.01685555 = sum of:
    0.01685555 = product of:
      0.05056665 = sum of:
        0.05056665 = weight(_text_:29 in 1856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05056665 = score(doc=1856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 1856, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1856)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 29(2002) nos.3/4, S.234-235
  10. Schottlaender, B.E.C.: Why metadata? Why now? Why me? (2003) 0.00 
    0.0019864459 = product of:
  0.015891567 = sum of:
    0.015891567 = product of:
      0.047674697 = sum of:
        0.047674697 = weight(_text_:29 in 5513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047674697 = score(doc=5513,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.43971092 = fieldWeight in 5513, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5513)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Date
    30. 7.2006 14:34:29
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 36(2003) nos.3/4, S.19-29
  11. Tennant, R.: ¬A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty-first century (2004) 0.00 
    0.0019685763 = product of:
  0.01574861 = sum of:
    0.01574861 = product of:
      0.04724583 = sum of:
        0.04724583 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04724583 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Date
    9.12.2005 19:22:38
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.175-181
  12. Crowston, K.; Kwasnik, B.H.: Can document-genre metadata improve information access to large digital collections? (2004) 0.00 
    0.0018075579 = product of:
  0.014460463 = sum of:
    0.014460463 = product of:
      0.04338139 = sum of:
        0.04338139 = weight(_text_:problem in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04338139 = score(doc=824,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.33160037 = fieldWeight in 824, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=824)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    We discuss the issues of resolving the information-retrieval problem in large digital collections through the identification and use of document genres. Explicit identification of genre seems particularly important for such collections because any search usually retrieves documents with a diversity of genres that are undifferentiated by obvious clues as to their identity. Also, because most genres are characterized by both form and purpose, identifying the genre of a document provides information as to the document's purpose and its fit to the user's situation, which can be otherwise difficult to assess. We begin by outlining the possible role of genre identification in the information-retrieval process. Our assumption is that genre identification would enhance searching, first because we know that topic alone is not enough to define an information problem and, second, because search results containing genre information would be more easily understandable. Next, we discuss how information professionals have traditionally tackled the issues of representing genre in settings where topical representation is the norm. Finally, we address the issues of studying the efficacy of identifying genre in large digital collections. Because genre is often an implicit notion, studying it in a systematic way presents many problems. We outline a research protocol that would provide guidance for identifying Web document genres, for observing how genre is used in searching and evaluating search results, and finally for representing and visualizing genres.
  13. Frodl, C.: International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications (2007) 0.00 
    0.0017557865 = product of:
  0.014046292 = sum of:
    0.014046292 = product of:
      0.042138875 = sum of:
        0.042138875 = weight(_text_:29 in 3674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042138875 = score(doc=3674,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.38865322 = fieldWeight in 3674, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3674)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Source
    Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 19(2007) H.1, S.29-32
  14. Christof, J.: Metadata sharing : Die Verbunddatenbank Internetquellen der Virtuellen Fachbibliothek Politikwissenschaft und der Virtuellen Fachbibliothek Wirtschaftswissenschaften (2003) 0.00 
    0.0017381401 = product of:
  0.013905121 = sum of:
    0.013905121 = product of:
      0.04171536 = sum of:
        0.04171536 = weight(_text_:29 in 1916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04171536 = score(doc=1916,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.38474706 = fieldWeight in 1916, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1916)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Date
    29. 9.2022 16:17:51
    Source
    Bibliotheken und Informationseinrichtungen - Aufgaben, Strukturen, Ziele: 29. Arbeits- und Fortbildungstagung der ASpB / Sektion 5 im DBV in Zusammenarbeit mit der BDB, BIB, DBV, DGI und VDB, zugleich DBV-Jahrestagung, 8.-11.4.2003 in Stuttgart. Red.: Margit Bauer
  15. 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) 0.00 
    0.001718506 = product of:
  0.006874024 = sum of:
    0.0040900367 = product of:
      0.01227011 = sum of:
        0.01227011 = weight(_text_:problem in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01227011 = score(doc=2874,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.09379075 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0027839874 = product of:
      0.008351962 = sum of:
        0.008351962 = weight(_text_:22 in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008351962 = score(doc=2874,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    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
    Aus den Arbeitsgruppen der Cataloguing Sektion: Schwerpunkt der Arbeiten der ISBD Review Group bleibt die Fortsetzung des generellen Revisionsprojekts. 2004 konnte die revidierte ISBD(G) veröffentlicht werden Für die Revision der ISBD(A) wurde eine Study Group aus Experten für das Alte Buch gebildet. Das weltweite Stellungnahmeverfahren ist für Frühjahr 2005 geplant. Bezüglich der Revision der ISBD(ER) konnten im weltweiten Stellungnahmeverfahren aufgekommene Fragen während der Sitzungen in Buenos Aires abschließend geklärt werden. Die Veröffentlichung der neuen ISBD(ER) ist für Ende 2004 / Anfang 2005 geplant. Die Revision der ISBD(CM) ist im Rahmen einer gemeinsamen Arbeitsgruppe der ISBD Review Group und der Sektion Geographie und Karten weiter vorangekommen. Für die Revision der ISBD(NBM) soll eine eigene Study Group gebildet werden. Die FRBR Review Group konnte erste Fortschritte bei der Erreichung der im vergangenen Jahr gesetzten Ziele Erarbeitung einer Richtlinie zur Anwendung der FRBR bei der Katalogisierung, Erweiterung der FRBR-Web-Seite im IFLAnet, um bei anderen communities (Archive, Museen etc.) für das Modell zu werben, sowie Überarbeitung des FRBR-Modells vermeIden. Von den in Berlin gebildeten fünf FRBR-Arbeitsgruppen (Expression entity Working Group, Working Group an continuing resources, Working Group an teaching and training, Working Group an subject relationships and classification, Working Group an FRBR/CRM dialogue) sind einige bereits aktiv gewesen, vor allem die letztgenannte Working Group an FRBR/CRM dialogue. Die "Working Group an subject relationships and classification" soll demnächst in Zusammenarbeit mit der Classification and Indexing Section etabliert werden. Ziel hierbei ist es, die FRBR auch auf den Bereich der Inhaltserschließung auszuweiten. Die "Working Group an continuing resources" hat in Buenos Aires beschlossen, ihre Arbeit nicht fortzuführen, da die FRBR in ihrer derzeitigen Fassung "seriality" nicht ausreichend berücksichtigen. Es ist geplant, eine neue Arbeitsgruppe unter Einbeziehung ausgewiesener Experten für fortlaufende Werke zu bilden, die sich mit diesem Problem beschäftigen soll. Für das IFLA Multilingual Dictionary of Cataloguing Terms and Concepts - MulDiCat' konnten die Richtlinien für die Eingabe in die Datenbank fertig gestellt und erforderliche Änderungen in der Datenbank implementiert werden. Die Datenbank dieses IFLA-Projekts enthält mittlerweile alle englischsprachigen Definitionen des AACR2-Glossars, die deutschen Übersetzungen der AACR2-Glossar-Definitionen sowie alle ISBD-Definitionen. Im nächsten Schritt sollen Einträge für die FRBR-Terminologie ergänzt werden. Ebenso sollen Ergänzungen zu den englischen Einträgen vorgenommen werden (aus AACR, ISBD, FRBR und weiteren IFLA-Publikationen). Die Guidelines for OPAC Displays (Richtlinien zur Präsentation von Suchergebnissen im OPAC) stehen nach der Durchführung des weltweiten Stellungnahmeverfahrens zur Veröffentlichung im IFLAnet bereit. Die Working Group an OPAC Displays hat damit ihre Arbeit beendet.
  16. Dekkers, M.: Dublin Core and the rights management issue (2000) 0.00 
    0.0015337638 = product of:
  0.012270111 = sum of:
    0.012270111 = product of:
      0.03681033 = sum of:
        0.03681033 = weight(_text_:problem in 4453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03681033 = score(doc=4453,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 4453, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4453)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Management of rights in electronic resources on the Internet is a complex issue. this can be considered almost universal knowledge, as paraphrases of this statement can be found in many discussions on this subject. This being the case, it is not surprising that a definition, operational solution to the problem has yet to be found. In one of the world's leading metadata initiatives, the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, discussions on this topic over several years have failed to reach a conclusion. Some people think the issue is simply too complex to handle, others that the provision of simple shortcuts to more detailed information should be sufficient. It could be argued that a solution to the issue is in fact out of scope for the Dublin Core element set, in so far as it aims only to establish a core set of descriptive metadata for resource discovery
  17. Martin, P.: Conventions and notations for knowledge representation and retrieval (2000) 0.00 
    0.0015337638 = product of:
  0.012270111 = sum of:
    0.012270111 = product of:
      0.03681033 = sum of:
        0.03681033 = weight(_text_:problem in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03681033 = score(doc=5070,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 5070, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5070)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Much research has focused on the problem of knowledge accessibility, sharing and reuse. Specific languages (e.g. KIF, CG, RDF) and ontologies have been proposed. Common characteristics, conventions or ontological distinctions are beginning to emerge. Since knowledge providers (humans and software agents) must follow common conventions for the knowledge to be widely accessed and re-used, we propose lexical, structural, semantic and ontological conventions based on various knowledge representation projects and our own research. These are minimal conventions that can be followed by most and cover the most common knowledge representation cases. However, agreement and refinements are still required. We also show that a notation can be both readable and expressive by quickly presenting two new notations -- Formalized English (FE) and Frame-CG (FCG) - derived from the CG linear form [9] and Frame-Logics [4]. These notations support the above conventions, and are implemented in our Web-based knowledge representation and document indexation tool, WebKB¹ [7]
  18. Masanès, J.; Lupovici, C.: Preservation metadata : the NEDLIB's proposal Bibliothèque Nationale de France (2001) 0.00 
    0.0015337638 = product of:
  0.012270111 = sum of:
    0.012270111 = product of:
      0.03681033 = sum of:
        0.03681033 = weight(_text_:problem in 6013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03681033 = score(doc=6013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 6013, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6013)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Preservation of digital documents for the long term requires above all to solve the problem of technological obsolescence. Accessing to digital documents in 20 or loo years will be impossible if we, or our successor, can't process the bit stream underlying digital documents. We can be sure that the modality of data processing will be different in 20 or loo years. It is then our task to collect key information about today's data processing to ensure future access to these documents. In this paper we present the NEDLIB's proposal for a preservation metadata set. This set gathers core metadata that are mandatory for preservation management purposes. We propose to define 8 metadata elements and 38 sub-elements following the OAIS taxonomy of information object. A layered information analysis of the digital document is proposed in order to list all information involved in the data processing of the bit stream. These metadata elements are intended to be populate, as much as possible, in an automatic way to make it possible to handle large amounts of documents
  19. Fischer, T.: Metadata registries : Aktueller Stand und zukünftige Entwicklungen (2003) 0.00 
    0.0015337638 = product of:
  0.012270111 = sum of:
    0.012270111 = product of:
      0.03681033 = sum of:
        0.03681033 = weight(_text_:problem in 1762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03681033 = score(doc=1762,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 1762, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1762)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Content
    Darin auch: "Wie und wo werden Klassifikationen beschrieben? - Klassifikationen, Kodierungen, Thesauri oder auch Ontologien müssen effektiv (maschinenlesbar) beschrieben werden, damit sie auch automatisch ausgelesen werden können. Es ist derzeit nicht klar, ob dies auch eine Aufgabe für Registries ist oder dafür andere Strukturen nötig sind. Derzeit passen Klassifikationsschemata (wie z.B. die Dewey Decimal Classification) nicht in das XML-orientierte Schema von Namespaces. Es sind auch noch keine eindeutigen Identifikatoren (URIs) festgelegt. Ein zusätzliches Problem entsteht,da nicht alle Klassifikationen frei zugänglich sind."
  20. Lagoze, C.; Van de Sompel, H.: ¬The making of the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (2003) 0.00 
    0.0015337638 = product of:
  0.012270111 = sum of:
    0.012270111 = product of:
      0.03681033 = sum of:
        0.03681033 = weight(_text_:problem in 4771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03681033 = score(doc=4771,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 4771, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4771)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    The authors, who jointly serve as the Open Archives Initiative (OAI) executive, reflect an the three-year history of the OAI. Three years of technical work recently culminated in the release of a stabie production version 2 of the OAI Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH). This technical product, the work that led up to it, and the process that made it possible have attracted some favor from the digital library and information community. The paper explores a number of factors in the history of the OAI that the authors believe have contributed to this positive response. The factors include focus an a defined problem Statement, an operational model in which strong leadership is balanced with solicited participation, a healthy dose of community building and Support, and sensible technical decisions.

Authors

Languages

  • e 83
  • d 12

Types

Themes