Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.08117986 = sum of:
  0.04916645 = product of:
    0.14749934 = sum of:
      0.14749934 = weight(_text_:objects in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14749934 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.31396845 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = 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)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.032013413 = product of:
    0.064026825 = sum of:
      0.064026825 = weight(_text_:22 in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.064026825 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059071355 = 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)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.026612123 = product of:
  0.053224247 = sum of:
    0.053224247 = product of:
      0.15967274 = sum of:
        0.15967274 = weight(_text_:objects in 3372) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15967274 = score(doc=3372,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.31396845 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            0.508563 = fieldWeight in 3372, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3372)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Europeana provides access to more than 54 million cultural heritage objects through its portal Europeana Collections. It is crucial for Europeana to be recognized by search engines as a trusted authoritative repository of cultural heritage objects. Indeed, even though its portal is the main entry point, most Europeana users come to it via search engines. Europeana Collections is fuelled by metadata describing cultural objects, represented in the Europeana Data Model (EDM). This paper presents the research and consequent recommendations for publishing Europeana metadata using the Schema.org vocabulary and best practices. Schema.org html embedded metadata to be consumed by search engines to power rich services (such as Google Knowledge Graph). Schema.org is an open and widely adopted initiative (used by over 12 million domains) backed by Google, Bing, Yahoo!, and Yandex, for sharing metadata across the web It underpins the emergence of new web techniques, such as so called Semantic SEO. Our research addressed the representation of the embedded metadata as part of the Europeana HTML pages and sitemaps so that the re-use of this data can be optimized. The practical objective of our work is to produce a Schema.org representation of Europeana resources described in EDM, being the richest as possible and tailored to Europeana's realities and user needs as well the search engines and their users.

0.026074447 = product of:
  0.052148893 = sum of:
    0.052148893 = product of:
      0.15644668 = sum of:
        0.15644668 = weight(_text_:objects in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15644668 = score(doc=1323,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.31396845 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.024010058 = product of:
  0.048020117 = sum of:
    0.048020117 = product of:
      0.096040234 = sum of:
        0.096040234 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096040234 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.021510322 = product of:
  0.043020643 = sum of:
    0.043020643 = product of:
      0.12906192 = sum of:
        0.12906192 = weight(_text_:objects in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12906192 = score(doc=1155,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31396845 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.021510322 = product of:
  0.043020643 = sum of:
    0.043020643 = product of:
      0.12906192 = sum of:
        0.12906192 = weight(_text_:objects in 1264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12906192 = score(doc=1264,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.31396845 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 1264, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1264)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Defining metadata as "data about data" provokes more questions than it answers. What are the forms of the data and metadata? Can we be more specific about the manner in which the metadata is "about" the data? Are data and metadata distinguished only in the context of their relationship? Is the nature of the relationship between the datasets declarative or procedural? Can the metadata itself be described by other data? Over the past several years, we have been engaged in a number of efforts examining the role, format, composition, and architecture of metadata for networked resources. During this time, we have noticed the tendency to be led astray by comfortable, but somewhat inappropriate, models in the non-digital information environment. Rather than pursuing familiar models, there is the need for a new model that fully exploits the unique combination of computation and connectivity that characterizes the digital library. In this paper, we describe an extension of the Warwick Framework that we call Distributed Active Relationships (DARs). DARs provide a powerful model for representing data and metadata in digital library objects. They explicitly express the relationships between networked resources, and even allow those relationships to be dynamically downloadable and executable. The DAR model is based on the following principles, which our examination of the "data about data" definition has led us to regard as axiomatic: * There is no essential distinction between data and metadata. We can only make such a distinction in terms of a particular "about" relationship. As a result, what is metadata in the context of one "about" relationship may be data in another. * There is no single "about" relationship. There are many different and important relationships between data resources. * Resources can be related without regard for their location. The connectivity in networked information architectures makes it possible to have data in one repository describe data in another repository. * The computational power of the networked information environment makes it possible to consider active or dynamic relationships between data sets. This adds considerable power to the "data about data" definition. First, data about another data set may not physically exist, but may be automatically derived. Second, the "about" relationship may be an executable object -- in a sense interpretable metadata. As will be shown, this provides useful mechanisms for handling complex metadata problems such as rights management of digital objects. The remainder of this paper describes the development and consequences of the DAR model. Section 2 reviews the Warwick Framework, which is the basis for the model described in this paper. Section 3 examines the concept of the Warwick Framework Catalog, which provides a mechanism for expressing the relationships between the packages in a Warwick Framework container. With that background established, section 4 generalizes the Warwick Framework by removing the restriction that it only contains "metadata". This allows us to consider digital library objects that are aggregations of (possibly distributed) data sets, with the relationships between the data sets expressed using a Warwick Framework Catalog. Section 5 further extends the model by describing Distributed Active Relationships (DARs). DARs are the explicit relationships that have the potential to be executable, as alluded to earlier. Finally, section 6 describes two possible implementations of these concepts.

0.01843742 = product of:
  0.03687484 = sum of:
    0.03687484 = product of:
      0.11062451 = sum of:
        0.11062451 = weight(_text_:objects in 2321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11062451 = score(doc=2321,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31396845 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.01843742 = product of:
  0.03687484 = sum of:
    0.03687484 = product of:
      0.11062451 = sum of:
        0.11062451 = weight(_text_:objects in 3893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11062451 = score(doc=3893,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31396845 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 3893, 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=3893)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In 2017, the University of Virginia (U.Va.) will launch a two year initiative to celebrate the bicentennial anniversary of the University's founding in 1819. The U.Va. Library is participating in this event by digitizing some 20,000 photographs and negatives that document student life on the U.Va. grounds in the 1960s and 1970s. Metadata librarians and archivists are well-versed in the challenges associated with generating digital content and accompanying description within the context of limited resources. This paper describes how technology and new approaches to metadata design have enabled the University of Virginia's Metadata Analysis and Design Department to rapidly and successfully generate accurate description for these digital objects. Python's pandas module improves efficiency by cleaning and repurposing data recorded at digitization, while the lxml module builds MODS XML programmatically from CSV tables. A simplified technique for subject heading selection and assignment in Google Sheets provides a collaborative environment for streamlined metadata creation and data quality control.

0.01843742 = product of:
  0.03687484 = sum of:
    0.03687484 = product of:
      0.11062451 = sum of:
        0.11062451 = weight(_text_:objects in 3896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11062451 = score(doc=3896,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31396845 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 3896, 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=3896)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Avalon Media System (Avalon) provides access and management for digital audio and video collections in libraries and archives. The open source project is led by the libraries of Indiana University Bloomington and Northwestern University and is funded in part by grants from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Institute of Museum and Library Services. Avalon is based on the Samvera Community (formerly Hydra Project) software stack and uses Fedora as the digital repository back end. The Avalon project team is in the process of migrating digital repositories from Fedora 3 to Fedora 4 and incorporating metadata statements using the Resource Description Framework (RDF) instead of XML files accompanying the digital objects in the repository. The Avalon team has worked on the migration path for technical metadata and is now working on the migration paths for structural metadata (PCDM) and descriptive metadata (from MODS XML to RDF). This paper covers the decisions made to begin using RDF for software development and offers a window into how Semantic Web technology functions in the real world.

0.015364516 = product of:
  0.030729031 = sum of:
    0.030729031 = product of:
      0.09218709 = sum of:
        0.09218709 = weight(_text_:objects in 6471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09218709 = score(doc=6471,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31396845 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.013306062 = product of:
  0.026612123 = sum of:
    0.026612123 = product of:
      0.07983637 = sum of:
        0.07983637 = weight(_text_:objects in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07983637 = score(doc=1216,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.31396845 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.012005029 = product of:
  0.024010058 = sum of:
    0.024010058 = product of:
      0.048020117 = sum of:
        0.048020117 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048020117 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.010004192 = product of:
  0.020008383 = sum of:
    0.020008383 = product of:
      0.040016767 = sum of:
        0.040016767 = weight(_text_:22 in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040016767 = score(doc=4550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10.11.2018 16:27:22

0.008003353 = product of:
  0.016006706 = sum of:
    0.016006706 = product of:
      0.032013413 = sum of:
        0.032013413 = weight(_text_:22 in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032013413 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20685782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059071355 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

26.12.2011 14:01:22