Search (60 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Ilik, V.; Storlien, J.; Olivarez, J.: Metadata makeover (2014) 0.05 
    0.053670634 = product of:
  0.10734127 = sum of:
    0.016039573 = weight(_text_:information in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016039573 = score(doc=2606,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 2606, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2606)
    0.091301695 = sum of:
      0.046170477 = weight(_text_:technology in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046170477 = score(doc=2606,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.32576108 = fieldWeight in 2606, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2606)
      0.04513122 = weight(_text_:22 in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04513122 = score(doc=2606,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2606, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2606)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Catalogers have become fluent in information technology such as web design skills, HyperText Markup Language (HTML), Cascading Stylesheets (CSS), eXensible Markup Language (XML), and programming languages. The knowledge gained from learning information technology can be used to experiment with methods of transforming one metadata schema into another using various software solutions. This paper will discuss the use of eXtensible Stylesheet Language Transformations (XSLT) for repurposing, editing, and reformatting metadata. Catalogers have the requisite skills for working with any metadata schema, and if they are excluded from metadata work, libraries are wasting a valuable human resource.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  2. Belém, F.M.; Almeida, J.M.; Gonçalves, M.A.: ¬A survey on tag recommendation methods : a review (2017) 0.03 
    0.033506516 = product of:
  0.06701303 = sum of:
    0.011456838 = weight(_text_:information in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011456838 = score(doc=3524,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3524, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3524)
    0.055556197 = sum of:
      0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02331961 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 3524, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3524)
      0.032236587 = weight(_text_:22 in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032236587 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3524, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3524)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Tags (keywords freely assigned by users to describe web content) have become highly popular on Web 2.0 applications, because of the strong stimuli and easiness for users to create and describe their own content. This increase in tag popularity has led to a vast literature on tag recommendation methods. These methods aim at assisting users in the tagging process, possibly increasing the quality of the generated tags and, consequently, improving the quality of the information retrieval (IR) services that rely on tags as data sources. Regardless of the numerous and diversified previous studies on tag recommendation, to our knowledge, no previous work has summarized and organized them into a single survey article. In this article, we propose a taxonomy for tag recommendation methods, classifying them according to the target of the recommendations, their objectives, exploited data sources, and underlying techniques. Moreover, we provide a critical overview of these methods, pointing out their advantages and disadvantages. Finally, we describe the main open challenges related to the field, such as tag ambiguity, cold start, and evaluation issues.
    Date
    16.11.2017 13:30:22
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.4, S.830-844
  3. Cho, H.; Donovan, A.; Lee, J.H.: Art in an algorithm : a taxonomy for describing video game visual styles (2018) 0.03 
    0.033506516 = product of:
  0.06701303 = sum of:
    0.011456838 = weight(_text_:information in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011456838 = score(doc=4218,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
    0.055556197 = sum of:
      0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02331961 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
      0.032236587 = weight(_text_:22 in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032236587 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The discovery and retrieval of video games in library and information systems is, by and large, dependent on a limited set of descriptive metadata. Noticeably missing from this metadata are classifications of visual style-despite the overwhelmingly visual nature of most video games and the interest in visual style among video game users. One explanation for this paucity is the difficulty in eliciting consistent judgements about visual style, likely due to subjective interpretations of terminology and a lack of demonstrable testing for coinciding judgements. This study presents a taxonomy of video game visual styles constructed from the findings of a 22-participant cataloging user study of visual styles. A detailed description of the study, and its value and shortcomings, are presented along with reflections about the challenges of cultivating consensus about visual style in video games. The high degree of overall agreement in the user study demonstrates the potential value of a descriptor like visual style and the use of a cataloging study in developing visual style taxonomies. The resulting visual style taxonomy, the methods and analysis described herein may help improve the organization and retrieval of video games and possibly other visual materials like graphic designs, illustrations, and animations.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.5, S.633-646
  4. Willis, C.; Greenberg, J.; White, H.: Analysis and synthesis of metadata goals for scientific data (2012) 0.03 
    0.026805215 = product of:
  0.05361043 = sum of:
    0.0091654705 = weight(_text_:information in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0091654705 = score(doc=367,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
    0.04444496 = sum of:
      0.01865569 = weight(_text_:technology in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01865569 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.13162735 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
      0.02578927 = weight(_text_:22 in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02578927 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The proliferation of discipline-specific metadata schemes contributes to artificial barriers that can impede interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. The authors considered this problem by examining the domains, objectives, and architectures of nine metadata schemes used to document scientific data in the physical, life, and social sciences. They used a mixed-methods content analysis and Greenberg's () metadata objectives, principles, domains, and architectural layout (MODAL) framework, and derived 22 metadata-related goals from textual content describing each metadata scheme. Relationships are identified between the domains (e.g., scientific discipline and type of data) and the categories of scheme objectives. For each strong correlation (>0.6), a Fisher's exact test for nonparametric data was used to determine significance (p < .05). Significant relationships were found between the domains and objectives of the schemes. Schemes describing observational data are more likely to have "scheme harmonization" (compatibility and interoperability with related schemes) as an objective; schemes with the objective "abstraction" (a conceptual model exists separate from the technical implementation) also have the objective "sufficiency" (the scheme defines a minimal amount of information to meet the needs of the community); and schemes with the objective "data publication" do not have the objective "element refinement." The analysis indicates that many metadata-driven goals expressed by communities are independent of scientific discipline or the type of data, although they are constrained by historical community practices and workflows as well as the technological environment at the time of scheme creation. The analysis reveals 11 fundamental metadata goals for metadata documenting scientific data in support of sharing research data across disciplines and domains. The authors report these results and highlight the need for more metadata-related research, particularly in the context of recent funding agency policy changes.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.8, S.1505-1520
  5. Kopácsi, S. et al.: Development of a classification server to support metadata harmonization in a long term preservation system (2016) 0.02 
    0.024219502 = product of:
  0.048439004 = sum of:
    0.016202414 = weight(_text_:information in 3280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016202414 = score(doc=3280,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3280, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3280)
    0.032236587 = product of:
      0.064473175 = sum of:
        0.064473175 = weight(_text_:22 in 3280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064473175 = score(doc=3280,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3280, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3280)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Series
    Communications in computer and information science; 672
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
  6. Hajra, A. et al.: Enriching scientific publications from LOD repositories through word embeddings approach (2016) 0.02 
    0.024219502 = product of:
  0.048439004 = sum of:
    0.016202414 = weight(_text_:information in 3281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016202414 = score(doc=3281,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3281, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3281)
    0.032236587 = product of:
      0.064473175 = sum of:
        0.064473175 = weight(_text_:22 in 3281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064473175 = score(doc=3281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3281, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Series
    Communications in computer and information science; 672
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
  7. Mora-Mcginity, M. et al.: MusicWeb: music discovery with open linked semantic metadata (2016) 0.02 
    0.024219502 = product of:
  0.048439004 = sum of:
    0.016202414 = weight(_text_:information in 3282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016202414 = score(doc=3282,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3282, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3282)
    0.032236587 = product of:
      0.064473175 = sum of:
        0.064473175 = weight(_text_:22 in 3282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064473175 = score(doc=3282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3282, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3282)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Series
    Communications in computer and information science; 672
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
  8. Alves dos Santos, E.; Mucheroni, M.L.: VIAF and OpenCitations : cooperative work as a strategy for information organization in the linked data era (2018) 0.02 
    0.022060106 = product of:
  0.04412021 = sum of:
    0.018330941 = weight(_text_:information in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018330941 = score(doc=4826,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 4826, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4826)
    0.02578927 = product of:
      0.05157854 = sum of:
        0.05157854 = weight(_text_:22 in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05157854 = score(doc=4826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4826)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    18. 1.2019 19:13:22
    Source
    Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira
  9. White, H.: Examining scientific vocabulary : mapping controlled vocabularies with free text keywords (2013) 0.02 
    0.019375602 = product of:
  0.038751204 = sum of:
    0.012961932 = weight(_text_:information in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012961932 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
    0.02578927 = product of:
      0.05157854 = sum of:
        0.05157854 = weight(_text_:22 in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05157854 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Scientific repositories create a new environment for studying traditional information science issues. The interaction between indexing terms provided by users and controlled vocabularies continues to be an area of debate and study. This article reports and analyzes findings from a study that mapped the relationships between free text keywords and controlled vocabulary terms used in the sciences. Based on this study's findings recommendations are made about which vocabularies may be better to use in scientific data repositories.
    Date
    29. 5.2015 19:09:22
  10. Mayernik, M.S.; Acker, A.: Tracing the traces : the critical role of metadata within networked communications (2018) 0.02 
    0.016717333 = product of:
  0.033434667 = sum of:
    0.0194429 = weight(_text_:information in 4013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0194429 = score(doc=4013,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4013, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4013)
    0.013991767 = product of:
      0.027983533 = sum of:
        0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 4013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027983533 = score(doc=4013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 4013, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The information sciences have traditionally been at the center of metadata-focused research. The US National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence documents revealed by Edward Snowden in June of 2013 brought the term "metadata" into the public consciousness. Surprisingly little discussion in the information sciences has since occurred on the nature and importance of metadata within networked communication systems. The collection of digital metadata impacts the ways that people experience social and technical communication. Without such metadata, networked communication cannot exist. The NSA leaks, and numerous recent hacks of corporate and government communications, point to metadata as objects of new scholarly inquiry. If we are to engage in meaningful discussions about our digital traces, or make informed decisions about new policies and technologies, it is essential to develop theoretical and empirical frameworks that account for digital metadata. This opinion paper presents 5 key sociotechnical characteristics of metadata within digital networks that would benefit from stronger engagement by the information sciences.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.177-180
  11. Fidler, B.; Acker, A.: Metadata, infrastructure, and computer-mediated communication in historical perspective (2017) 0.01 
    0.013973147 = product of:
  0.027946293 = sum of:
    0.011456838 = weight(_text_:information in 3346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011456838 = score(doc=3346,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3346, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3346)
    0.016489455 = product of:
      0.03297891 = sum of:
        0.03297891 = weight(_text_:technology in 3346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03297891 = score(doc=3346,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 3346, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3346)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In this paper we describe the creation and use of metadata on the early Arpanet as part of normal network function. By using the Arpanet Host-Host Protocol and its sockets as an entry point for studying the generation of metadata, we show that the development and function of key Arpanet infrastructure can be studied by examining the creation and stabilization of metadata. More specifically, we use the Host-Host Protocol's sockets as an example of something that, at the level of the network, functions as both network infrastructure and metadata simultaneously. By presenting the function of sockets in tandem with an overview of the Host-Host Protocol, we argue for the further integrated study of infrastructure and metadata. Finally, we reintroduce the concept of infradata to refer specifically to data that locate data throughout an infrastructure and are required by the infrastructure to function, separating them from established and stabilized standards. We argue for the future application of infradata as a concept for the study of histories and political economies of networks, bridging the largely library and information science (LIS) study of metadata with the largely science and technology studies (STS) domain of infrastructure.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.2, S.412-422
  12. Tosaka, Y.; Park, J.-r.: RDA: Resource description & access : a survey of the current state of the art (2013) 0.01 
    0.01393111 = product of:
  0.02786222 = sum of:
    0.016202414 = weight(_text_:information in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016202414 = score(doc=677,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=677,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Resource Description & Access (RDA) is intended to provide a flexible and extensible framework that can accommodate all types of content and media within rapidly evolving digital environments while also maintaining compatibility with the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2). The cataloging community is grappling with practical issues in navigating the transition from AACR2 to RDA; there is a definite need to evaluate major subject areas and broader themes in information organization under the new RDA paradigm. This article aims to accomplish this task through a thorough and critical review of the emerging RDA literature published from 2005 to 2011. The review mostly concerns key areas of difference between RDA and AACR2, the relationship of the new cataloging code to metadata standards, the impact on encoding standards such as Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), end user considerations, and practitioners' views on RDA implementation and training. Future research will require more in-depth studies of RDA's expected benefits and the manner in which the new cataloging code will improve resource retrieval and bibliographic control for users and catalogers alike over AACR2. The question as to how the cataloging community can best move forward to the post-AACR2/MARC environment must be addressed carefully so as to chart the future of bibliographic control in the evolving environment of information production, management, and use.
    Series
    Advances in information science
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.651-662
  13. Margaritopoulos, M.; Margaritopoulos, T.; Mavridis, I.; Manitsaris, A.: Quantifying and measuring metadata completeness (2012) 0.01 
    0.013869986 = product of:
  0.027739972 = sum of:
    0.013748205 = weight(_text_:information in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013748205 = score(doc=43,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 43, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=43)
    0.013991767 = product of:
      0.027983533 = sum of:
        0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027983533 = score(doc=43,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 43, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=43)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Completeness of metadata is one of the most essential characteristics of their quality. An incomplete metadata record is a record of degraded quality. Existing approaches to measure metadata completeness limit their scope in counting the existence of values in fields, regardless of the metadata hierarchy as defined in international standards. Such a traditional approach overlooks several issues that need to be taken into account. This paper presents a fine-grained metrics system for measuring metadata completeness, based on field completeness. A metadata field is considered to be a container of multiple pieces of information. In this regard, the proposed system is capable of following the hierarchy of metadata as it is set by the metadata schema and admeasuring the effect of multiple values of multivalued fields. An application of the proposed metrics system, after being configured according to specific user requirements, to measure completeness of a real-world set of metadata is demonstrated. The results prove its ability to assess the sufficiency of metadata to describe a resource and provide targeted measures of completeness throughout the metadata hierarchy.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.724-737
  14. Palavitsinis, N.; Manouselis, N.; Sanchez-Alonso, S.: Metadata quality in digital repositories : empirical results from the cross-domain transfer of a quality assurance process (2014) 0.01 
    0.011856608 = product of:
  0.023713216 = sum of:
    0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 1288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00972145 = score(doc=1288,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1288, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1288)
    0.013991767 = product of:
      0.027983533 = sum of:
        0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 1288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027983533 = score(doc=1288,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 1288, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1288)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.6, S.1202-1216
  15. Liu, X.; Qin, J.: ¬An interactive metadata model for structural, descriptive, and referential representation of scholarly output (2014) 0.01 
    0.011558321 = product of:
  0.023116643 = sum of:
    0.011456838 = weight(_text_:information in 1253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011456838 = score(doc=1253,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1253, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1253)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 1253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=1253,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 1253, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1253)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The scientific metadata model proposed in this article encompasses both classical descriptive metadata such as those defined in the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (DC) and the innovative structural and referential metadata properties that go beyond the classical model. Structural metadata capture the structural vocabulary in research publications; referential metadata include not only citations but also data about other types of scholarly output that is based on or related to the same publication. The article describes the structural, descriptive, and referential (SDR) elements of the metadata model and explains the underlying assumptions and justifications for each major component in the model. ScholarWiki, an experimental system developed as a proof of concept, was built over the wiki platform to allow user interaction with the metadata and the editing, deleting, and adding of metadata. By allowing and encouraging scholars (both as authors and as users) to participate in the knowledge and metadata editing and enhancing process, the larger community will benefit from more accurate and effective information retrieval. The ScholarWiki system utilizes machine-learning techniques that can automatically produce self-enhanced metadata by learning from the structural metadata that scholars contribute, which will add intelligence to enhance and update automatically the publication of metadata Wiki pages.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.5, S.964-983
  16. Syn, S.Y.; Spring, M.B.: Finding subject terms for classificatory metadata from user-generated social tags (2013) 0.01 
    0.0098805055 = product of:
  0.019761011 = sum of:
    0.008101207 = weight(_text_:information in 745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008101207 = score(doc=745,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 745, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=745)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=745,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 745, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=745)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.5, S.964-980
  17. Çelebi, A.; Özgür, A.: Segmenting hashtags and analyzing their grammatical structure (2018) 0.01 
    0.0098805055 = product of:
  0.019761011 = sum of:
    0.008101207 = weight(_text_:information in 4221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008101207 = score(doc=4221,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4221, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4221)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 4221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=4221,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 4221, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4221)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.5, S.675-686
  18. Pfister, E.; Wittwer, B.; Wolff, M.: Metadaten - Manuelle Datenpflege vs. Automatisieren : ein Praxisbericht zu Metadatenmanagement an der ETH-Bibliothek (2017) 0.01 
    0.0056414027 = product of:
  0.02256561 = sum of:
    0.02256561 = product of:
      0.04513122 = sum of:
        0.04513122 = weight(_text_:22 in 5630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04513122 = score(doc=5630,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5630, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5630)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    B.I.T.online. 20(2017) H.1, S.22-25
  19. Park, H.; Smiraglia, R.P.: Enhancing data curation of cultural heritage for information sharing : a case study using open Government data (2014) 0.01 
    0.005434456 = product of:
  0.021737823 = sum of:
    0.021737823 = weight(_text_:information in 1575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021737823 = score(doc=1575,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 1575, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1575)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this paper is to enhance cultural heritage data curation. A core research question of this study is how to share cultural heritage data by using ontologies. A case study was conducted using open government data mapped with the CIDOC-CRM (Conceptual Reference Model). Twelve library-related files in unstructured data format were collected from an open government website, Seoul Metropolitan Government of Korea (http://data.seoul.go.kr). By using the ontologies of the CIDOC CRM 5.1.2, we conducted a mapping process as a way of enhancing cultural heritage information to share information as a data component. We graphed each file then mapped each file in tables. Implications of this study are both the enhanced discoverability of unstructured data and the reusability of mapped information. Issues emerging from this study involve verification of detail for complete compatibility without further input from domain experts.
    Series
    Communications in computer and information science; 478
  20. Grün, S.; Poley, C: Statistische Analysen von Semantic Entities aus Metadaten- und Volltextbeständen von German Medical Science (2017) 0.01 
    0.005434456 = product of:
  0.021737823 = sum of:
    0.021737823 = weight(_text_:information in 5032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021737823 = score(doc=5032,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 5032, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5032)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper analyzes the information content of metadata and full texts in German Medical Science (GMS) articles in English language. The object of the study is to compare semantic entities that are used to enrich GMS metadata (titles and abstracts) and GMS full texts. The aim of the study is to test whether using full texts increases the value added information. The comparison and evaluation of semantic entities was done statistically. Measures of descriptive statistics were gathered for this purpose. In addition to the ratio of central tendencies and scatterings, we computed the overlaps and complements of the values. The results show a distinct increase of information when full texts are added. On average, metadata contain 25 different entities and full texts 215. 89% of the concepts in the metadata are also represented in the full texts. Hence, 11% of the metadata concepts are found in the metadata only. In summary, the results show that the addition of full texts increases the informational value, e.g. for information retrieval processes.
    Source
    GMS Medizin-Bibliothek-Information. 17(2017) no.3, S.1-5

Authors

Languages

  • e 55
  • d 5

Themes