Search (196 results, page 10 of 10)

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 4453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=4453,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4453, 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=4453)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Management of rights in electronic resources on the Internet is a complex issue. this can be considered almost universal knowledge, as paraphrases of this statement can be found in many discussions on this subject. This being the case, it is not surprising that a definition, operational solution to the problem has yet to be found. In one of the world's leading metadata initiatives, the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, discussions on this topic over several years have failed to reach a conclusion. Some people think the issue is simply too complex to handle, others that the provision of simple shortcuts to more detailed information should be sufficient. It could be argued that a solution to the issue is in fact out of scope for the Dublin Core element set, in so far as it aims only to establish a core set of descriptive metadata for resource discovery

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 1761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=1761,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1761, 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=1761)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Das »Semantic Web« bildet einen der wichtigsten, aktuellen Trends in der Weiterentwicklung des World Wide Web. Ehrgeizige Vision dieser nächsten Generation des WWW ist es, durch semantische Anreicherung von Information eine neue Qualität in der Bereitstellung von Inhalten und Diensten zu erreichen und vollständig neue Anwendungsmöglichkeiten für das Web zu eröffnen. Wichtige Ziele der Entwicklung des Semantic Web sind dabei die verbesserte Unterstützung von Kooperation zwischen Menschen und Computern und die intelligente Assistenz bei der Durchführung von Aufgaben in kooperativen verteilten Informationsumgebungen. Schlüssel zur Erreichung dieser Ziele sind die Anreicherung von Daten im Web mit Metadaten, welche diese Daten in einen semantischen Kontext einbetten. Diese Kontextinformation wird durch Software-Anwendungen interpretiert und zur Informationsfilterung, Verfeinerung von Anfragen und zur Bereitstellung intelligenter Assistenten verwendet. Eine große Herausforderung stellt dabei die geeignete Modellierung und Beschreibung des Kontexts dar. Diese muss eine automatische, globale Interpretation ermöglichen, ohne dass auf ein allgemeingültiges semantisches Beschreibungsschema zurückgegriffen werden kann. Die Vereinbarung eines solchen allgemeingültigen Schemas ist in einem derart umfangreichen, heterogenen und autonomen Rahmen, wie ihn das WWW darstellt, nicht möglich.

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 4771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=4771,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4771, 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=4771)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The authors, who jointly serve as the Open Archives Initiative (OAI) executive, reflect an the three-year history of the OAI. Three years of technical work recently culminated in the release of a stabie production version 2 of the OAI Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH). This technical product, the work that led up to it, and the process that made it possible have attracted some favor from the digital library and information community. The paper explores a number of factors in the history of the OAI that the authors believe have contributed to this positive response. The factors include focus an a defined problem Statement, an operational model in which strong leadership is balanced with solicited participation, a healthy dose of community building and Support, and sensible technical decisions.

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 4775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=4775,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4775, 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=4775)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In July of 2001, with funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign undertook a project to test the efficacy of using the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting to construct a search and discovery service focused on information resources in the domain of cultural heritage. To date, the Illinois project has indexed over two million Dublin Core metadata records contributed by 39 metadata repositories in the museum, academic library, and digital library project communities. These records describe a mix of digital and analog primary content. Our analysis of these metadata records demonstrates wide divergence in descriptive metadata practices and the use and interpretation of Dublin Core metadata elements. Differences are particularly notable by community. This article provides an overview of the Illinois project, presents quantitative data about divergent metadata practices and element usage patterns, and details implications for metadata providers and harvesting services.

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5666, 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=5666)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper discusses the concept of "metadata" in the scope of the "digital library," two terms recently used in a great diversity of perspectives. It is not the intent to promote privilege of any particular view, but rather to help provide a better understanding of these multiple perspectives. The paper starts with a discussion of the concept of digital library, followed by an analysis of the concept of metadata. It continues with a discussion about the relationship of this concept with technology, services, and scenarios of application. The concluding remarks stress the three main arguments assumed for the relevance of the concept of metadata: the growing number of heterogeneous genres of information resources, the new emerging scenarios for interoperability, and issues related to the cost and complexity of current technology.

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 5725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=5725,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5725, 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=5725)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Although the development and implementation of metadata schemes over the last decade has been extensive, research examining the sum of these activities is limited. This limitation is likely due to the massive scope of the topic. A framework is needed to study the full extent of, and functionalities supported by, metadata schemes. Metadata schemes developed for information resources are analyzed. To begin, I present a review of the definition of metadata, metadata functions, and several metadata typologies. Next, a conceptualization for metadata schemes is presented. The emphasis is on semantic container-like metadata schemes (data structures). The last part of this paper introduces the MODAL (Metadata Objectives and principles, Domains, and Architectural Layout) framework as an approach for studying metadata schemes. The paper concludes with a brief discussion on value of frameworks for examining metadata schemes, including different types of metadata schemes.

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 176, 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=176)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Metadata schemes target resources as information-packages, without attention to the distinction between content and carrier. Most schema are derived without empirical understanding of the concepts that need to be represented, the ways in which terms representing the central concepts might best be derived, and how metadata descriptions will be used for retrieval. Research is required to resolve this dilemma, and much research will be required if the plethora of schemes that already exist are to be made efficacious for resource description and retrieval. Here I report the results of a preliminary study, which was designed to see whether the bibliographic concept of "the work" could be of any relevance among artifacts held by a museum. I extend the "works metaphor" from the bibliographic to the artifactual domain, by altering the terms of the definition slightly, thus: 1) instantiation is understood as content genealogy. Case studies of Etruscan artifacts from the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology are used to demonstrate the inherence of the work in non-documentary artifacts.

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=458,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 458, 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=458)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.9, S.1338-1345

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 5808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=5808,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5808, 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=5808)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information Research & Content Management: Orientierung, Ordnung und Organisation im Wissensmarkt; 23. DGI-Online-Tagung der DGI und 53. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis e.V. DGI, Frankfurt am Main, 8.-10.5.2001. Proceedings. Hrsg.: R. Schmidt

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 1253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=1253,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1253, 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=1253)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 29(2003) no.2, S.20-23

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 4468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=4468,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4468, 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=4468)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper examines the reasons why existing management practices designed to cope with paper-based data objects appear to be inadequate for managing digital data objects (DDOs). The research described suggests the need for a reassessment of the way we view long-term access to DDOs. There is a need for a shift in emphasis which embraces the fluid nature of such objects and addresses the multifaceted issues involved in achieving such access. It would appear from the findings of this research that a conceptual framework needs to be developed which addresses a range of elements. The research achieved this by examining the issues facing stakeholders involved in this field; examining the need for and structure of a new generic conceptual framework, the super-metadata framework; identifying and discussing the issues central to the development of such a framework; and justifying the feasibility through the creation of an interactive cost model and stakeholder evaluation. The wider conceptual justification for such a framework is discussed and this involves an examination of the "public good" argument for the long-term retention of DDOs and the importance of selection in the management process. The paper concludes by considering the benefits to practitioners and the role they might play in testing the feasibility of such a framework. The paper also suggests possible avenues researchers may wish to consider to develop further the management of this field. (Note: This paper is derived from the author's Loughborough University phD thesis, "Managing long-term access to digital data objects: a metadata approach", written while holding a research studentship funded by the Department of Information Science.)

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=204,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 204, 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=204)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.5, S.613-628

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 2781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=2781,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2781, 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=2781)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Das XML-Format "Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard" (METS) bietet eine übersichtliche Form, beliebige Metadaten nach funktionalen Kategorien geordnet zusammen mit den betreffenden digitalen Objekten auszutauschen. Ursprünglich im Kontext von Digitalisierungsprojekten in den USA entstanden, findet es heute weltweit insbesondere in Bibliotheken Anwendung. Über so genannte METS-Profile können dabei konkrete Anwendungsszenarien für das ansonsten sehr generische Format spezifiziert werden. Ein solches METS-Profil ist z. B. das im deutschen Langzeitarchivierungsprojekt kopal entstandene Universelle Objektformat für die Archivierung und den Austausch von digitalen Objekten. Der Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) wurde 2001 von der US-amerikanischen Digital Library Federation entwickelt und wird seitdem von der Library of Congress verwaltet. Es handelt sich dabei um eine XML-basierte Spezifikation zur Bündelung von Metadata zu digitalen Objekten. Entstanden ist sie im Zuge von Digitalisierungsprojekten, in denen ein hoher Bedarf an einer einheitlichen Beschreibung der Strukturinformationen zu einem Digitalisat und der zugehörigen Meta-daten - bibliografische und andere - vorhanden war. Insbesondere beim Digitalisieren von Büchern entstehen zahlreiche Bilddateien, die ohne eine zusätzliche Information zur Struktur und Relation untereinander schwer nachnutzbar sind. Zugleich fallen verschiedene Kategorien von Metadaten als Zusatzinformationen an, die es gilt, sinnvoll den Dateien zuzuordnen: Inhaltlich-bibliografische, administrative, rechtliche, technische und Informationen über die ursprüngliche Digitalisierungsvorlage. Da METS sich als Austauschformat zwischen verschiedenen Projekten versteht und nicht als einheitliche Vorgabe für alle diese Bereiche, macht es keine Vorschriften, welche Metadatenfelder und -formate in den einzelnen Bereichen verwendet werden müssen. Zwar werden einheitliche Informationen zur Struktur und Dateibeschreibung vorgesehen, aber ansonsten beliebige Metadaten in benannten thematischen Blöcken zugelassen. Darüber hinaus ist es auch möglich, die beschriebenen digitalen Objekte selbst in die METS-XML-Datei einzubinden.

0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=3197,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 3197, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3197)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez.: JASIST 56(2005) no.13, S.1264 (W. Koehler: "Priscilla Caplan provides us with a sweeping but very welcome survey of the various approaches to metadata in practice or proposed in libraries and archives today. One of the key strengths of the book and paradoxically one of its key weaknesses is that the work is descriptive in nature. While relationships between one system and another may be noted, no general conclusions of a practical or theoretical nature are drawn of the relative merits of one metadata or metametadata scheure as against another. That said, let us remember that this is an American Library Association publication, published as a descriptive resource. Caplan does very well what she sets out to do. The work is divided into two parts: "Principles and Practice" and "Metadata Schemes," and is further subdivided into eighteen chapters. The book begins with short yet more than adequate chapters defining terms, vocabularies, and concepts. It discusses interoperability and the various levels of quality among systems. Perhaps Chapter 5, "Metadata and the Web" is the weakest chapter of the work. There is a brief discussion of how search engines work and some of the more recent initiatives (e.g., the Semantic Web) to develop better retrieval agents. The chapter is weck not in its description but in what it fails to discuss. The second section, "Metadata Schemes," which encompasses chapters six through eighteen, is particularly rich. Thirteen different metadata or metametadata schema are described to provide the interested librarian with a better than adequate introduction to the purpose, application, and operability of each metadata scheme. These are: library cataloging (chiefly MARC), TEI, Dublin Core, Archival Description and EAD, Art and Architecture, GILS, Education, ONIX, Geospatial, Data Documentation Initiative, Administrative Metadata, Structural Metadata, and Rights Metadata. The last three chapters introduce concepts heretofore "foreign" to the realm of the catalog or metadata. Descriptive metadata was . . . intended to help in finding, discovering, and identifying an information resource." (p. 151) Administrative metadata is an aid to ". . . the owners or caretakers of the resource." Structural metadata describe the relationships of data elements. Rights metadata describe (or as Caplan points out, may describe, as definition is still as yet ambiguous) end user rights to use and reproduce material in digital format. Keeping in mind that the work is intended for the general practitioner librarian, the book has a particularly useful glossary and index. Caplan also provides useful suggestions for additional reading at the end of each chapter. 1 intend to adopt Metadata Fundamentals for All Librarians when next I teach a digital cataloging course. Caplan's book provides an excellent introduction to the basic concepts. It is, however, not a "cookbook" nor a guidebook into the complexities of the application of any metadata scheme."

0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 5732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=5732,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 5732, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5732)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The speed with change takes place is startling and has left the information community with little time to consider how the development of electronic resources and the metadata schemas created to describe them effect how we view a work and its components. In terms of the attribution of authorship in the context of electronic works, this is a salient point. How does one determine authorship of a complex electronic resource, which is the culmination of the work of a myriad of entities? How does one determine the authorship when the content of the electronic resource may change at any moment without warning? What is the semantic content of the element that denotes authorship or responsibility for an electronic resource and how does the term used determine the element's meaning? The conceptual difficulty in the definition of the Creator element is deciphering what exactly the metadata schema should be describing. We also need to establish what purpose the element is intended to serve. In essence, we are at a crossroads. It is clear that once a work is digitized it exists in a significantly different medium, but how do we provide access to it? It is necessary to critically assess the accuracy of digital surrogates and to note that webmasters have a significant amount of intellectual responsibility invested in the sites they create. The solution to the problem in the Creator element may lie in moving from the concept of "authorship" and "origination" to a concept of intellectual responsibility. Perhaps the problematic nature of the Creator element allows us to move forward in our assessment and treatment of knowledge. One solution may be to standardize the definitions within various element sets. As the semantic web continues to grow and librarians strive to catalog electronic resources, the establishment of standard definitions for elements is becoming more relevant and important.

0.0015172462 = product of:
  0.006068985 = sum of:
    0.006068985 = weight(_text_:information in 3173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006068985 = score(doc=3173,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.068573356 = fieldWeight in 3173, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3173)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The integration of metadata from distinct, heterogeneous data sources requires metadata interoperability, which is a qualitative property of metadata information objects that is not given by default. The technique of metadata mapping allows domain experts to establish metadata interoperability in a certain integration scenario. Mapping solutions, as a technical manifestation of this technique, are already available for the intensively studied domain of database system interoperability, but they rarely exist for the Web. If we consider the amount of steadily increasing structured metadata and corresponding metadata schemes on theWeb, we can observe a clear need for a mapping solution that can operate in aWeb-based environment. To achieve that, we first need to build its technical core, which is a mapping model that provides the language primitives to define mapping relationships. Existing SemanticWeb languages such as RDFS and OWL define some basic mapping elements (e.g., owl:equivalentProperty, owl:sameAs), but do not address the full spectrum of semantic and structural heterogeneities that can occur among distinct, incompatible metadata information objects. Furthermore, it is still unclear how to process defined mapping relationships during run-time in order to deliver metadata to the client in a uniform way. As the main contribution of this thesis, we present an abstract mapping model, which reflects the mapping problem on a generic level and provides the means for reconciling incompatible metadata. Instance transformation functions and URIs take a central role in that model. The former cover a broad spectrum of possible structural and semantic heterogeneities, while the latter bind the complete mapping model to the architecture of the Word Wide Web. On the concrete, language-specific level we present a binding of the abstract mapping model for the RDF Vocabulary Description Language (RDFS), which allows us to create mapping specifications among incompatible metadata schemes expressed in RDFS. The mapping model is embedded in a cyclic process that categorises the requirements a mapping solution should fulfil into four subsequent phases: mapping discovery, mapping representation, mapping execution, and mapping maintenance. In this thesis, we mainly focus on mapping representation and on the transformation of mapping specifications into executable SPARQL queries. For mapping discovery support, the model provides an interface for plugging-in schema and ontology matching algorithms. For mapping maintenance we introduce the concept of a simple, but effective mapping registry. Based on the mapping model, we propose aWeb-based mediator wrapper-architecture that allows domain experts to set up mediation endpoints that provide a uniform SPARQL query interface to a set of distributed metadata sources. The involved data sources are encapsulated by wrapper components that expose the contained metadata and the schema definitions on the Web and provide a SPARQL query interface to these metadata. In this thesis, we present the OAI2LOD Server, a wrapper component for integrating metadata that are accessible via the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH). In a case study, we demonstrate how mappings can be created in aWeb environment and how our mediator wrapper architecture can easily be configured in order to integrate metadata from various heterogeneous data sources without the need to install any mapping solution or metadata integration solution in a local system environment.