Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.08051794 = product of:
  0.20129485 = sum of:
    0.14036494 = weight(_text_:objects in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14036494 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2987821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05621413 = queryNorm
        0.46979034 = fieldWeight in 2686, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2686)
    0.06092991 = weight(_text_:22 in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06092991 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19685231 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05621413 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2686, 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=2686)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Metadata (structured information about an object or collection of objects) is increasingly important to libraries, archives, and museums. And although librarians are familiar with a number of issues that apply to creating and using metadata (e.g., authority control, controlled vocabularies, etc.), the world of metadata is nonetheless different than library cataloging, with its own set of challenges. Therefore, whether you are new to these concepts or quite experienced with classic cataloging, this short (20 pages) introductory paper on metadata can be helpful

Date

10. 9.2004 10:22:40

0.029775903 = product of:
  0.14887951 = sum of:
    0.14887951 = weight(_text_:objects in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14887951 = score(doc=1323,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2987821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05621413 = queryNorm
        0.49828792 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Maintaining a library of digital objects of necessaryy requires maintaining metadata about those objects. The metadata necessary for successful management and use of digital objeets is both more extensive than and different from the metadata used for managing collections of printed works and other physical materials. While a library may record descriptive metadata regarding a book in its collection, the book will not dissolve into a series of unconnected pages if the library fails to record structural metadata regarding the book's organization, nor will scholars be unable to evaluate the book's worth if the library fails to note that the book was produced using a Ryobi offset press. The Same cannot be said for a digital version of the saure book. Without structural metadata, the page image or text files comprising the digital work are of little use, and without technical metadata regarding the digitization process, scholars may be unsure of how accurate a reflection of the original the digital version provides. For internal management purposes, a library must have access to appropriate technical metadata in order to periodically refresh and migrate the data, ensuring the durability of valuable resources.

0.024563866 = product of:
  0.12281933 = sum of:
    0.12281933 = weight(_text_:objects in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12281933 = score(doc=1155,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2987821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05621413 = queryNorm
        0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper proposes a model for metadata crosswalks that associates three pieces of information: the crosswalk, the source metadata standard, and the target metadata standard, each of which may have a machine-readable encoding and human-readable description. The crosswalks are encoded as METS records that are made available to a repository for processing by search engines, OAI harvesters, and custom-designed Web services. The METS object brings together all of the information required to access and interpret crosswalks and represents a significant improvement over previously available formats. But it raises questions about how best to describe these complex objects and exposes gaps that must eventually be filled in by the digital library community.

0.021054743 = product of:
  0.10527371 = sum of:
    0.10527371 = weight(_text_:objects in 2321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10527371 = score(doc=2321,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2987821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05621413 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 2321, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2321)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper provides a brief overview of the evolving descriptive metadata landscape, one phenomenon of which can be characterized as "cross-community" metadata as manifested in records that are the result of a combination of carefully considered data value and data content standards. he online catalog of the Morgan Library & Museum provides a real-life illustration of how diverse data content standards and vocabulary tools can be integrated within the classic data structure/technical interchange format of MARC21 to better describe unique, museum-type objects, and to provide better end-user access and understanding. The Morgan experience also shows the value of developing a collaborative model for metadata creation that combines the subject expertise of curators and scholars with the cataloging expertise and knowledge of standards possessed by librarians.

0.018278973 = product of:
  0.091394864 = sum of:
    0.091394864 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.091394864 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19685231 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05621413 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.01754562 = product of:
  0.0877281 = sum of:
    0.0877281 = weight(_text_:objects in 6471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0877281 = score(doc=6471,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2987821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05621413 = queryNorm
        0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 6471, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6471)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Metadata interoperability is a fundamental requirement for access to information within networked knowledge organization systems. The Harmony international digital library project [1] has developed a common underlying data model (the ABC model) to enable the scalable mapping of metadata descriptions across domains and media types. The ABC model [2] provides a set of basic building blocks for metadata modeling and recognizes the importance of 'events' to describe unambiguously metadata for objects with a complex history. To test and evaluate the interoperability capabilities of this model, we applied it to some real multimedia examples and analysed the results of mapping from the ABC model to various different metadata domains using XSLT [3]. This work revealed serious limitations in the ability of XSLT to support flexible dynamic semantic mapping. To overcome this, we developed MetaNet [4], a metadata term thesaurus which provides the additional semantic knowledge that is non-existent within declarative XML-encoded metadata descriptions. This paper describes MetaNet, its RDF Schema [5] representation and a hybrid mapping approach which combines the structural and syntactic mapping capabilities of XSLT with the semantic knowledge of MetaNet, to enable flexible and dynamic mapping among metadata standards.

0.0151949525 = product of:
  0.07597476 = sum of:
    0.07597476 = weight(_text_:objects in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07597476 = score(doc=1216,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2987821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05621413 = queryNorm
        0.2542815 = fieldWeight in 1216, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1216)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Reality is messy. Individuals perceive or define objects differently. Objects may change over time, morphing into new versions of their former selves or into things altogether different. A book can give rise to a translation, derivation, or edition, and these resulting objects are related in complex ways to each other and to the people and contexts in which they were created or transformed. Providing a normalized view of such a messy reality is a precondition for managing information. From the first library catalogs, through Melvil Dewey's Decimal Classification system in the nineteenth century, to today's MARC encoding of AACR2 cataloging rules, libraries have epitomized the process of what David Levy calls "order making", whereby catalogers impose a veneer of regularity on the natural disorder of the artifacts they encounter. The pre-digital library within which the Catalog and its standards evolved was relatively self-contained and controlled. Creating and maintaining catalog records was, and still is, the task of professionals. Today's Web, in contrast, has brought together a diversity of information management communities, with a variety of order-making standards, into what Stuart Weibel has called the Internet Commons. The sheer scale of this context has motivated a search for new ways to describe and index information. Second-generation search engines such as Google can yield astonishingly good search results, while tools such as ResearchIndex for automatic citation indexing and techniques for inferring "Web communities" from constellations of hyperlinks promise even better methods for focusing queries on information from authoritative sources. Such "automated digital libraries," according to Bill Arms, promise to radically reduce the cost of managing information. Alongside the development of such automated methods, there is increasing interest in metadata as a means of imposing pre-defined order on Web content. While the size and changeability of the Web makes professional cataloging impractical, a minimal amount of information ordering, such as that represented by the Dublin Core (DC), may vastly improve the quality of an automatic index at low cost; indeed, recent work suggests that some types of simple description may be generated with little or no human intervention.

0.006092991 = product of:
  0.030464955 = sum of:
    0.030464955 = weight(_text_:22 in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030464955 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19685231 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05621413 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1236, 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=1236)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

26.12.2011 14:01:22