Search (52 results, page 2 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  1. Cranefield, S.: Networked knowledge representation and exchange using UML and RDF (2001) 0.00 
    0.003889871 = product of:
  0.019449355 = sum of:
    0.019449355 = weight(_text_:information in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019449355 = score(doc=5896,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This paper proposes the use of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) as a language for modelling ontologies for Web resources and the knowledge contained within them. To provide a mechanism for serialising and processing object diagrams representing knowledge, a pair of XSI-T stylesheets have been developed to map from XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) encodings of class diagrams to corresponding RDF schemas and to Java classes representing the concepts in the ontologies. The Java code includes methods for marshalling and unmarshalling object-oriented information between in-memory data structures and RDF serialisations of that information. This provides a convenient mechanism for Java applications to share knowledge on the Web
    Source
    Journal of digital information. 1(2001) no.8
  2. Kunze, J.: ¬A Metadata Kernel for Electronic Permanence (2002) 0.00 
    0.0038499737 = product of:
  0.019249868 = sum of:
    0.019249868 = weight(_text_:information in 1107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019249868 = score(doc=1107,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1107, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1107)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of digital information. 2(2002) no.2,
  3. Lagoze, C.; Hunter, J.: ¬The ABC Ontology and Model (2002) 0.00 
    0.0038499737 = product of:
  0.019249868 = sum of:
    0.019249868 = weight(_text_:information in 1282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019249868 = score(doc=1282,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1282, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1282)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of digital information. 2(2002) no.2,
  4. Howarth, L.C.: Metadata schemes for subject gateways (2003) 0.00 
    0.0038499737 = product of:
  0.019249868 = sum of:
    0.019249868 = weight(_text_:information in 1747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019249868 = score(doc=1747,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1747, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1747)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Theme
    Information Gateway
  5. Siripan, P.: Metadata and trends of cataloging in Thai libraries (1999) 0.00 
    0.00362979 = product of:
  0.01814895 = sum of:
    0.01814895 = weight(_text_:information in 4183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01814895 = score(doc=4183,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 4183, 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=4183)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    A status of cataloging in Thailand shows a movement toward the use of information technology. The international standards for cataloging are being used and modified to effectively organize the information resources. An expanded scope of resources needed cataloging now covers cataloging the Web resources. The paper mentions Thailand's participation in the international working group on the use of metadata for libraries
  6. Anutariya, C.; Wuwongse, K.; Akama, E.; Nantajeewarawat, E.: RDF Declarative Description (RDD) : A Language for Metadata (2002) 0.00 
    0.0032083113 = product of:
  0.016041556 = sum of:
    0.016041556 = weight(_text_:information in 1278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016041556 = score(doc=1278,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1278, 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=1278)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of digital information. 2(2002) no.2,
  7. Baker, T.; Dekkers, M.; Heery, R.; Patel, M.; Salokhe, G.: What Terms Does Your Metadata Use? : Application Profiles as Machine-Understandable Narratives (2002) 0.00 
    0.0032083113 = product of:
  0.016041556 = sum of:
    0.016041556 = weight(_text_:information in 1279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016041556 = score(doc=1279,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1279, 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=1279)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of digital information. 2(2002) no.2,
  8. Apps, A.; MacIntyre, R.; Heery, R.; Patel, M.; Salokhe, G.: Zetoc : a Dublin Core Based Current Awareness Service (2002) 0.00 
    0.0032083113 = product of:
  0.016041556 = sum of:
    0.016041556 = weight(_text_:information in 1280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016041556 = score(doc=1280,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1280, 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=1280)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of digital information. 2(2002) no.2,
  9. Greenberg, J.; Pattuelli, M.; Parsia, B.; Robertson, W.: Author-generated Dublin Core Metadata for Web Resources : A Baseline Study in an Organization (2002) 0.00 
    0.0032083113 = product of:
  0.016041556 = sum of:
    0.016041556 = weight(_text_:information in 1281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016041556 = score(doc=1281,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1281, 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=1281)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of digital information. 2(2002) no.2,
  10. Wen, D.; Sakaguchi, T.; Sugimoto, S.; Tabata, K.: Multilingual Access to Dublin Core Metadata of ULIS Library (2002) 0.00 
    0.0032083113 = product of:
  0.016041556 = sum of:
    0.016041556 = weight(_text_:information in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016041556 = score(doc=2342,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2342, 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=2342)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of digital information. 2(2002) no.2,
  11. Riley, J.: Understanding metadata : what is metadata, and what is it for? (2017) 0.00 
    0.0032083113 = product of:
  0.016041556 = sum of:
    0.016041556 = weight(_text_:information in 2005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016041556 = score(doc=2005,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2005, 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=2005)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Imprint
    Baltimore : National Information Standards Organization
  12. Roy, W.; Gray, C.: Preparing existing metadata for repository batch import : a recipe for a fickle food (2018) 0.00 
    0.003191654 = product of:
  0.01595827 = sum of:
    0.01595827 = product of:
      0.03191654 = sum of:
        0.03191654 = weight(_text_:22 in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03191654 = score(doc=4550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1649855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047114085 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4550, 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=4550)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    10.11.2018 16:27:22
  13. Godby, C.J.; Young, J.A.; Childress, E.: ¬A repository of metadata crosswalks (2004) 0.00 
    0.0031760663 = product of:
  0.015880331 = sum of:
    0.015880331 = weight(_text_:information in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015880331 = score(doc=1155,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 1155, 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=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.
  14. Buckland, M.; Chen, A.; Chen, H.M.; Kim, Y.; Lam, B.; Larson, R.; Norgard, B.; Purat, J.; Gey, F.: Mapping entry vocabulary to unfamiliar metadata vocabularies (1999) 0.00 
    0.0030684597 = product of:
  0.015342298 = sum of:
    0.015342298 = weight(_text_:und in 1238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015342298 = score(doc=1238,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10442211 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 1238, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1238)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Footnote
    Vgl.: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january99/buckland/01buckland.html und http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/research/metadata/oasis.html.
  15. Suominen, O.; Hyvönen, N.: From MARC silos to Linked Data silos? (2017) 0.00 
    0.0030684597 = product of:
  0.015342298 = sum of:
    0.015342298 = weight(_text_:und in 3732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015342298 = score(doc=3732,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10442211 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 3732, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3732)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Seit einiger Zeit stellen Bibliotheken ihre bibliografischen Metadadaten verstärkt offen in Form von Linked Data zur Verfügung. Dabei kommen jedoch ganz unterschiedliche Modelle für die Strukturierung der bibliografischen Daten zur Anwendung. Manche Bibliotheken verwenden ein auf FRBR basierendes Modell mit mehreren Schichten von Entitäten, während andere flache, am Datensatz orientierte Modelle nutzen. Der Wildwuchs bei den Datenmodellen erschwert die Nachnutzung der bibliografischen Daten. Im Ergebnis haben die Bibliotheken die früheren MARC-Silos nur mit zueinander inkompatiblen Linked-Data-Silos vertauscht. Deshalb ist es häufig schwierig, Datensets miteinander zu kombinieren und nachzunutzen. Kleinere Unterschiede in der Datenmodellierung lassen sich zwar durch Schema Mappings in den Griff bekommen, doch erscheint es fraglich, ob die Interoperabilität insgesamt zugenommen hat. Der Beitrag stellt die Ergebnisse einer Studie zu verschiedenen veröffentlichten Sets von bibliografischen Daten vor. Dabei werden auch die unterschiedlichen Modelle betrachtet, um bibliografische Daten als RDF darzustellen, sowie Werkzeuge zur Erzeugung von entsprechenden Daten aus dem MARC-Format. Abschließend wird der von der Finnischen Nationalbibliothek verfolgte Ansatz behandelt.
  16. What is Schema.org? (2011) 0.00 
    0.0027223425 = product of:
  0.0136117125 = sum of:
    0.0136117125 = weight(_text_:information in 4437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0136117125 = score(doc=4437,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4437, 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=4437)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This site provides a collection of schemas, i.e., html tags, that webmasters can use to markup their pages in ways recognized by major search providers. Search engines including Bing, Google and Yahoo! rely on this markup to improve the display of search results, making it easier for people to find the right web pages. Many sites are generated from structured data, which is often stored in databases. When this data is formatted into HTML, it becomes very difficult to recover the original structured data. Many applications, especially search engines, can benefit greatly from direct access to this structured data. On-page markup enables search engines to understand the information on web pages and provide richer search results in order to make it easier for users to find relevant information on the web. Markup can also enable new tools and applications that make use of the structure. A shared markup vocabulary makes easier for webmasters to decide on a markup schema and get the maximum benefit for their efforts. So, in the spirit of sitemaps.org, Bing, Google and Yahoo! have come together to provide a shared collection of schemas that webmasters can use.
  17. Suranofsky, M.; McColl, L.: a Google sheets add-on that uses the WorldCat search API : MatchMarc (2019) 0.00 
    0.0027223425 = product of:
  0.0136117125 = sum of:
    0.0136117125 = weight(_text_:information in 5442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0136117125 = score(doc=5442,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 5442, 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=5442)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Lehigh University Libraries has developed a new tool for querying WorldCat using the WorldCat Search API. The tool is a Google Sheet Add-on and is available now via the Google Sheets Add-ons menu under the name "MatchMarc." The add-on is easily customizable, with no knowledge of coding needed. The tool will return a single "best" OCLC record number, and its bibliographic information for a given ISBN or LCCN, allowing the user to set up and define "best." Because all of the information, the input, the criteria, and the results exist in the Google Sheets environment, efficient workflows can be developed from this flexible starting point. This article will discuss the development of the add-on, how it works, and future plans for development.
  18. Dunsire, G.; Willer, M.: Initiatives to make standard library metadata models and structures available to the Semantic Web (2010) 0.00 
    0.0025666493 = product of:
  0.012833246 = sum of:
    0.012833246 = weight(_text_:information in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012833246 = score(doc=3965,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This paper describes recent initiatives to make standard library metadata models and structures available to the Semantic Web, including IFLA standards such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), and International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) along with the infrastructure that supports them. The FRBR Review Group is currently developing representations of FRAD and the entityrelationship model of FRBR in resource description framework (RDF) applications, using a combination of RDF, RDF Schema (RDFS), Simple Knowledge Organisation System (SKOS) and Web Ontology Language (OWL), cross-relating both models where appropriate. The ISBD/XML Task Group is investigating the representation of ISBD in RDF. The IFLA Namespaces project is developing an administrative and technical infrastructure to support such initiatives and encourage uptake of standards by other agencies. The paper describes similar initiatives with related external standards such as RDA - resource description and access, REICAT (the new Italian cataloguing rules) and CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM). The DCMI RDA Task Group is working with the Joint Steering Committee for RDA to develop Semantic Web representations of RDA structural elements, which are aligned with FRBR and FRAD, and controlled metadata content vocabularies. REICAT is also based on FRBR, and an object-oriented version of FRBR has been integrated with CRM, which itself has an RDF representation. CRM was initially based on the metadata needs of the museum community, and is now seeking extension to the archives community with the eventual aim of developing a model common to the main cultural information domains of archives, libraries and museums. The Vocabulary Mapping Framework (VMF) project has developed a Semantic Web tool to automatically generate mappings between metadata models from the information communities, including publishers. The tool is based on several standards, including CRM, FRAD, FRBR, MARC21 and RDA.
    Content
    Vortrag im Rahmen der Session 93. Cataloguing der WORLD LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CONGRESS: 76TH IFLA GENERAL CONFERENCE AND ASSEMBLY, 10-15 August 2010, Gothenburg, Sweden - 149. Information Technology, Cataloguing, Classification and Indexing with Knowledge Management
  19. Strobel, S.: Englischsprachige Erweiterung des TIB / AV-Portals : Ein GND/DBpedia-Mapping zur Gewinnung eines englischen Begriffssystems (2014) 0.00 
    0.0025570497 = product of:
  0.012785248 = sum of:
    0.012785248 = weight(_text_:und in 2876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012785248 = score(doc=2876,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10442211 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 2876, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2876)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Die Videos des TIB / AV-Portals werden mit insgesamt 63.356 GND-Sachbegriffen aus Naturwissenschaft und Technik automatisch verschlagwortet. Neben den deutschsprachigen Videos verfügt das TIB / AV-Portal auch über zahlreiche englischsprachige Videos. Die GND enthält zu den in der TIB / AV-Portal-Wissensbasis verwendeten Sachbegriffen nur sehr wenige englische Bezeichner. Es fehlt demnach ein englisches Indexierungsvokabular, mit dem die englischsprachigen Videos automatisch verschlagwortet werden können. Die Lösung dieses Problems sieht wie folgt aus: Die englischen Bezeichner sollen über ein Mapping der GND-Sachbegriffe auf andere Datensätze gewonnen werden, die eine englische Übersetzung der Begriffe enthalten. Die verwendeten Mappingstrategien nutzen die DBpedia, LCSH, MACS-Ergebnisse sowie den WTI-Thesaurus. Am Ende haben 35.025 GND-Sachbegriffe (mindestens) einen englischen Bezeichner ermittelt bekommen. Diese englischen Bezeichner können für die automatische Verschlagwortung der englischsprachigen Videos unmittelbar herangezogen werden. 11.694 GND-Sachbegriffe konnten zwar nicht ins Englische "übersetzt", aber immerhin mit einem Oberbegriff assoziiert werden, der eine englische Übersetzung hat. Diese Assoziation dient der Erweiterung der Suchergebnisse.
  20. Lagoze, C.: Keeping Dublin Core simple : Cross-domain discovery or resource description? (2001) 0.00 
    0.0024062335 = product of:
  0.012031167 = sum of:
    0.012031167 = weight(_text_:information in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012031167 = score(doc=1216,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.14546604 = fieldWeight in 1216, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, 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.
    Metadata is not monolithic. Instead, it is helpful to think of metadata as multiple views that can be projected from a single information object. Such views can form the basis of customized information services, such as search engines. Multiple views -- different types of metadata associated with a Web resource -- can facilitate a "drill-down" search paradigm, whereby people start their searches at a high level and later narrow their focus using domain-specific search categories. In Figure 1, for example, Mona Lisa may be viewed from the perspective of non-specialized searchers, with categories that are valid across domains (who painted it and when?); in the context of a museum (when and how was it acquired?); in the geo-spatial context of a walking tour using mobile devices (where is it in the gallery?); and in a legal framework (who owns the rights to its reproduction?). Multiple descriptive views imply a modular approach to metadata. Modularity is the basis of metadata architectures such as the Resource Description Framework (RDF), which permit different communities of expertise to associate and maintain multiple metadata packages for Web resources. As noted elsewhere, static association of multiple metadata packages with resources is but one way of achieving modularity. Another method is to computationally derive order-making views customized to the current needs of a client. This paper examines the evolution and scope of the Dublin Core from this perspective of metadata modularization. Dublin Core began in 1995 with a specific goal and scope -- as an easy-to-create and maintain descriptive format to facilitate cross-domain resource discovery on the Web. Over the years, this goal of "simple metadata for coarse-granularity discovery" came to mix with another goal -- that of community and domain-specific resource description and its attendant complexity. A notion of "qualified Dublin Core" evolved whereby the model for simple resource discovery -- a set of simple metadata elements in a flat, document-centric model -- would form the basis of more complex descriptions by treating the values of its elements as entities with properties ("component elements") in their own right.
    At the time of writing, the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) has clarified its commitment to the simple approach. The qualification principles announced in early 2000 support the use of DC elements as the basis for simple statements about resources, rather than as the foundation for more descriptive clauses. This paper takes a critical look at some of the issues that led up to this renewed commitment to simplicity. We argue that: * There remains a compelling need for simple, "pidgin" metadata. From a technical and economic perspective, document-centric metadata, where simple string values are associated with a finite set of properties, is most appropriate for generic, cross-domain discovery queries in the Internet Commons. Such metadata is not necessarily fixed in physical records, but may be projected algorithmically from more complex metadata or from content itself. * The Dublin Core, while far from perfect from an engineering perspective, is an acceptable standard for such simple metadata. Agreements in the global information space are as much social as technical, and the process by which the Dublin Core has been developed, involving a broad cross-section of international participants, is a model for such "socially developed" standards. * Efforts to introduce complexity into Dublin Core are misguided. Complex descriptions may be necessary for some Web resources and for some purposes, such as administration, preservation, and reference linking. However, complex descriptions require more expressive data models that differentiate between agents, documents, contexts, events, and the like. An attempt to intermix simplicity and complexity, and the data models most appropriate for them, defeats the equally noble goals of cross-domain description and extensive resource description. * The principle of modularity suggests that metadata formats tailored for simplicity be used alongside others tailored for complexity.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 35
  • d 17

Types

  • a 32
  • n 3
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes