Search (196 results, page 2 of 10)

0.060776353 = product of:
  0.121552706 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=1250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
    0.10953673 = weight(_text_:standards in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10953673 = score(doc=1250,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.4874794 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Metadata has taken an a new took with the advent of XML and digital resources. XML provides a new versatile structure for tagging and packaging metadata as the rapid proliferation of digital resources demands both rapidly produced descriptive data and the encoding of more types of metadata. Two emerging standards are attempting to harness these developments for library needs. The first is the Metadata Object and Description Schema (MODS), a MARC-compatible XML schema for encoding descriptive data. The second standard is the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS), a highly flexible XML schema for packaging the descriptive metadata and various other important types of metadata needed to assure the use and preservation of digital resources.

Source

Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 29(2003) no.2, S.11-15

0.060737852 = product of:
  0.0809838 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 138, 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=138)
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 138, 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=138)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

This paper presents findings of a survey an the state of cataloging and metadata education. in ALA-accredited library and information science progranis in North America. The survey was conducted in response to Action Item 5.1 of the "Bibliographic Control of Web Resources: A Library of Congress Action Plan," which focuses an providing metadata education to new LIS professionals. The study found LIS programs increased their reliance an introductory courses to cover cataloging and metadata, but fewer programs than before had a cataloging course requirement. The knowledge of cataloging delivered in introductory courses was basic, and the coverage of metadata was limited to an overview. Cataloging courses showed similarity in coverage and practice and focused an print mater!als. Few cataloging educators provided exercises in metadata record creation using non-AACR standards. Advanced cataloging courses provided in-depth coverage of subject cataloging and the cataloging of nonbook resources, but offered very limited coverage of metadata. Few programs offered full courses an metadata, and even fewer offered advanced metadata courses. Metadata topics were well integrated into LIS curricula, but coverage of metadata courses varied from program to program, depending an the interests of instructors. Educators were forward-looking and agreed an the inclusion of specific knowledge and skills in metadata instruction. A series of actions were proposed to assist educators in providing students with competencies in cataloging and metadata.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.058374356 = product of:
  0.077832475 = sum of:
    0.008409433 = weight(_text_:information in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008409433 = score(doc=2874,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09501803 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
    0.06259242 = weight(_text_:standards in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06259242 = score(doc=2874,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27855965 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
    0.0068306234 = product of:
      0.013661247 = sum of:
        0.013661247 = weight(_text_:22 in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013661247 = score(doc=2874,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

"Libraries: Tools for Education and Development" war das Motto der 70. IFLA-Generalkonferenz, dem Weltkongress Bibliothek und Information, der vom 22.-27. August 2004 in Buenos Aires, Argentinien, und damit erstmals in Lateinamerika stattfand. Rund 3.000 Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmer, davon ein Drittel aus spanischsprachigen Ländern, allein 600 aus Argentinien, besuchten die von der IFLA und dem nationalen Organisationskomitee gut organisierte Tagung mit mehr als 200 Sitzungen und Veranstaltungen. Aus Deutschland waren laut Teilnehmerverzeichnis leider nur 45 Kolleginnen und Kollegen angereist, womit ihre Zahl wieder auf das Niveau von Boston gesunken ist. Erfreulicherweise gab es nunmehr bereits im dritten Jahr eine deutschsprachige Ausgabe des IFLA-Express. Auch in diesem Jahr soll hier über die Veranstaltungen der Division IV Bibliographic Control berichtet werden. Die Arbeit der Division mit ihren Sektionen Bibliography, Cataloguing, Classification and Indexing sowie der neuen Sektion Knowledge Management bildet einen der Schwerpunkte der IFLA-Arbeit, die dabei erzielten konkreten Ergebnisse und Empfehlungen haben maßgeblichen Einfluss auf die tägliche Arbeit der Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. Erstmals wird auch ausführlich über die Arbeit der Core Activities ICABS und UNIMARC und der Information Technology Section berichtet.

Content

Bibliography Section (Sektion Bibliographie) Die Sektion befasst sich mit Inhalt, Aufbau, Produktion, Verteilung und Erhaltung von bibliographischen Informationen, in erster Linie, aber nicht ausschließlich bezogen auf Nationalbibliographien. Sie fördert die "Universal Bibliographic Control (UBC)" durch die Verbreitung von Standards und praktischen Anwendungsbeispielen.
Cataloguing Section (Sektion Katalogisierung) Der Schwerpunkt der Arbeit dieser Sektion liegt auf der Erarbeitung bzw. internationalen Harmonisierung von Strukturen, Regeln und Arbeitsverfahren mit dem Ziel, die internationale Kooperation im Katalogisierungsbereich zu verbessern. In Anbetracht des laufenden Evaluierungsprozesses wurde der Strategieplan der Sektion zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt nur dort aktualisiert, wo es unbedingt erforderlich war. Neue Ziele wurden nicht aufgenommen. Oberste Priorität bei den strategischen Zielen behielt die Entwicklung internationaler Katalogisierungsstandards für die bibliographische Beschreibung und den Zugriff. In ihrer zentralen Bedeutung bestätigt wurden auch die "Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records" (FRBR). Darüber hinaus gehört auch in Zukunft die Weiterentwicklung und Revision der ISBDs zu den zentralen Anliegen der Arbeit der Sektion Katalogisierung. Ein weiteres vorrangiges Ziel bleibt die Erarbeitung von Standards, Regeln und Informationslisten, um den Zugang zu bibliographischen Daten in allen Sprachen zu ermöglichen. Hierzu zählen u. a.: - die vollständige Veröffentlichung der Anonymous Classics: Der Teil für europäische Literatur ist inzwischen veröffentlicht'. Für die Erarbeitung weiterer Teile (Lateinamerika, Afrika und Asien) soll das Verfahren gestrafft und ein Zeitplan erstellt werden. - die Beobachtung der Aktivitäten zu Unicode und die Information der Sektionsmitglieder darüber zur Förderung des mehrsprachigen Zugangs zu bibliographischer Information - die Entwicklung eines web-basierten multilingualen Wörterbuchs für Katalogisierungsbegriffe - die Entwicklung und der Test von (Daten-)Modellen für eine virtuelle internationale Normdatei - die Überarbeitung der "IFLA Names of persons". Das Open Programme der Sektion stand in diesem Jahr unter dem Motto "Developments in Cataloguing Guidelines" und wurde von Barbara Tillett, Lynne Howarth und Carol van Nuys bestritten. Lynne Howarth ging in ihrem Vortrag "Enabling metadata: creating a core record for resource discovery" auf die Reaktionen im weltweiten Stellungnahmeverfahren auf die Veröffentlichung des Papiers "Guidance an the Structure, Content and Application of Metadata Records for digital resources and collections" der Working Group an the Use of Metadata Schemes ein. Carol van Nuys stellte das norwegische "Paradigma Project and its quest for metadata solutions and services" vor.
Classification and Indexing Section (Sektion Klassifikation und Indexierung) Die Working Group an Guidelines for Multilingual Thesauri hat ihre Arbeit abgeschlossen, die Richtlinien werden Ende 2004 im IFLAnet zur Verfügung stehen. Die 2003 ins Leben gerufene Arbeitsgruppe zu Mindeststandards der Inhaltserschließung in Nationalbibliographien hat sich in Absprache mit den Mitgliedern des Standing Committee auf den Namen "Guidelines for minimal requirements for subject access by national bibliographic agencies" verständigt. Als Grundlage der zukünftigen Arbeit soll der "Survey an Subject Heading Languages Used in National Libraries and Bibliographies" von Magda HeinerFreiling dienen. Davon ausgehend soll eruiert werden, welche Arten von Medienwerken mit welchen Instrumentarien und in welcher Tiefe erschlossen werden. Eine weitere Arbeitsgruppe der Sektion befasst sich mit dem sachlichen Zugriff auf Netzpublikationen (Working Group an Subject Access to Web Resources). Die Veranstaltung "Implementation and adaption of global tools for subject access to local needs" fand regen Zuspruch. Drei Vortragende zeigten auf, wie in ihrem Sprachgebiet die Subject Headings der Library of Congress (LoC) übernommen werden (Development of a Spanish subject heading list und Subject indexing in Sweden) bzw. wie sich die Zusammenarbeit mit der LoC gestalten lässt, um den besonderen terminologischen Bedürfnissen eines Sprach- und Kulturraums außerhalb der USA Rechnung zu tragen (The SACO Program in Latin America). Aus deutscher Sicht verdiente der Vortrag "Subject indexing between international standards and local context - the Italian case" besondere Beachtung. Die Entwicklung eines Regelwerks zur verbalen Sacherschließung und die Erarbeitung einer italienischen Schlagwortnormdatei folgen nämlich erklärtermaßen der deutschen Vorgehensweise mit RSWK und SWD.
Knowledge Management Section (Sektion Wissensmanagement) Ziel der neuen Sektion ist es, die Entwicklung und Implementierung des Wissensmanagements in Bibliotheken und Informationszentren zu fördern. Die Sektion will dafür eine internationale Plattform für die professionelle Kommunikation bieten und damit das Thema bekannter und allgemein verständlicher machen. Auf diese Weise soll seine Bedeutung auch für Bibliotheken und die mit ihm arbeitenden Einrichtungen herausgestellt werden. IFLA-CDNL Alliance for Bibliographic Standards (ICABS) Ein Jahr nach ihrer Gründung in Berlin hat die IFLA Core Activity "IFLA-CDNL Alliance for Bibliographic Standards (ICABS)" in Buenos Aires zum ersten Mal das Spektrum ihrer Arbeitsfelder einem großen Fachpublikum vorgestellt. Die IFLA Core Activity UNIMARC, einer der Partner der Allianz, hatte am Donnerstagvormittag zu einer Veranstaltung unter dem Titel "The holdings record as a bibliographic control tool" geladen. Am Nachmittag des selben Tages fand unter dem Titel "The new IFLA-CDNL Alliance for Bibliographic Standards - umbrella for multifaceted activities: strategies and practical ways to improve international coordination" die umfassende ICABS-Veranstaltung statt, die von der Generaldirektorin Der Deutschen Bibliothek, Dr. Elisabeth Niggemann, moderiert wurde. Nachdem die Vorsitzende des Advisory Board in ihrem Vortrag auf die Entstehungsgeschichte der Allianz eingegangen war, gab sie einen kurzen Oberblick über die Organisation und die Arbeit von ICABS als Dach der vielfältigen Aktivitäten im Bereich bibliographischer Standards. Vertreter aller in ICABS zusammengeschlossener Bibliotheken stellten im Anschluss daran ihre Arbeitsbereiche und -ergebnisse vor.
Projekt "Mapping ISBDs to FRBR" Die Deutsche Bibliothek und die British Library haben im Rahmen ihrer jeweiligen Zuständigkeiten innerhalb von ICABS gemeinsam das Projekt "Mapping ISBDs to FRBR" finanziert. Beide Bibliotheken unterstützen damit die strategischen Ziele der IFLA-CDNL Allianz für bibliographische Standards. Die Deutsche Bibliothek ist innerhalb der Allianz verantwortlich für die Unterstützung der Pflege und Weiterentwicklung der ISBD, während die British Library für die Unterstützung von Pflege und Entwicklung der FRBR zuständig ist. Für die Durchführung des Projekts konnte Tom Delsey gewonnen werden, der federführender Autor der FRBR ist und Beiträge zu vielen verschiedenen Aspekten der ISBDs geliefert hat. Das Ergebnis seiner Arbeit "Mapping ISBD Elements to FRBR Entity Attributes and Relationships" steht im IFLAnet zur VerFügung (http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/pubs/ISBD-FRBR-mappingFinal.pdf).

0.05792077 = product of:
  0.11584154 = sum of:
    0.088519044 = weight(_text_:standards in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088519044 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.39394283 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
    0.027322493 = product of:
      0.054644987 = sum of:
        0.054644987 = weight(_text_:22 in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054644987 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 751, 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=751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article is a survey of representative metadata efforts comparing them to MARC 21 metadata in order to determine if new electronic formats require the development of a new set of standards. This study surveys the ongoing metadata projects in order to identify what types of metadata exist and how they are used and also compares and analyzes selected metadata elements in an attempt to illustrate how they are related to MARC 21 metadata format elements.

Date

23. 1.2007 11:22:30

0.054977722 = product of:
  0.07330363 = sum of:
    0.012874261 = weight(_text_:information in 133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012874261 = score(doc=133,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.14546604 = fieldWeight in 133, 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=133)
    0.047912344 = weight(_text_:standards in 133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047912344 = score(doc=133,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21322784 = fieldWeight in 133, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=133)
    0.012517029 = product of:
      0.025034059 = sum of:
        0.025034059 = weight(_text_:organization in 133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025034059 = score(doc=133,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.13927174 = fieldWeight in 133, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=133)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 33(2006) no.1, S.58-60 (S.J. Miller): "Metadata: A Cataloger's Primer is a welcome addition to the field of introductory books about metadata intended for librarians and students. The book consists of a collection of papers co-published simultaneously as Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, Volume 40, Numbers 3/4 2005. In the Introduction, the book's editor, Richard P Smiraglia, states that "The purpose of this volume is to provide a learning resource about metadata for catalog librarians and students ... The point of the volume, overall, is that in library and information science there is an ongoing convergence of cataloging and metadata, such that the community will benefit from instructional material that demonstrates this convergence" (p. 1). The collection is divided into two major sections. Part I, "Intellectual Foundations," includes papers with an introductory and theoretical focus, while Part II, "How to Create, Apply, and Use Metadata," contains material with a relatively more practical, instructive focus. In "Understanding Metadata and Metadata Schemes," Jane Greenberg defines metadata and its functions and provides a useful framework for analyzing and comparing diverse metadata schemes based on their objectives and principles, domains, and architectural layout. In her paper "Metadata and Bibliographic Control: Soul-mates or Two Solitudes?" Lynne Howarth directly addresses the central theme of this collection by examining the historical development of, and growing convergence between, the two fields, and concludes that they are more soulmates than solitudes. In "Metadata, Metaphor, and Metonymy," D. Grant Campbell outlines the development of metadata among different stakeholder communities and employs structuralist literary theory to illuminate a perspective on metadata and information representation as special uses of human language in the form of metaphor and metonymy. Part I continues with three papers that present the results of original applied research. Leatrice Ferraioli explores the ways in which individual workers use their own personal metadata for organizing documents in the workplace in "An Exploratory Study of Metadata Creation in a Health Care Agency." In her paper "The Defining Element-A Discussion of the Creator Element within Metadata Schemas," Jennifer Cwiok analyses divergent uses of the "Creator" or equivalent elements in seven different metadata schemes and compares those with the AACR2 approach to representing authorship and intellectual responsibility. The relevance of the bibliographic concept of "the work" to metadata creation for museum artifacts is the focus of "Content Metadata-An Analysis of Etruscan Artifacts in a Museum of Archeology" by Richard P Smiraglia.
Part II consists of five papers on specific metadata standards and applications. Anita Coleman presents an element-by-element description of how to create Dublin Core metadata for Web resources to be included in a library catalog, using principles inspired by cataloging practice, in her paper "From Cataloging to Metadata: Dublin Core Records for the Library Catalog." The next three papers provide especially excellent introductory overviews of three diverse types of metadata-related standards: "Metadata Standards for Archival Control: An Introduction to EAD and EAC" by Alexander C. Thurman, "Introduction to XML" by Patrick Yott, and "METS: the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard" by Linda Cantara. Finally, Michael Chopey offers a superb and most useful overview of "Planning and Implementing a Metadata-Driven Digital Repository." Although all of the articles in this book contain interesting, often illuminating, and potentially useful information, not all serve equally well as introductory material for working catalogers not already familiar with metadata. It would be difficult to consider this volume, taken as a whole, as truly a "primer" for catalog librarians, as the subtitle implies. The content of the articles is too much a mix of introductory essays and original research, some of it at a relatively more advanced level. The collection does not approach the topic in the kind of coherent, systematic, or comprehensive way that would be necessary for a true "primer" or introductory textbook. While several of the papers would be quite appropriate for a primer, such a text would need to include, among other things, coverage of other metadata schemes and protocols such as TEI, VRA, and OAI, which are missing here. That having been said, however, Dr. Smiraglia's excellent introduction to the volume itself serves as a kind of concise, well-written "mini-primer" for catalogers new to metadata. It succinctly covers definitions of metadata, basic concepts, content designation and markup languages, metadata for resource description, including short overviews of TEI, DC, EAD, and AACR2/MARC21, and introduces the papers included in the book. In the conclusion to this essay, Dr. Smiraglia says about the book: "In the end the contents go beyond the definition of primer as `introductory textbook.' But the authors have collectively compiled a thought-provoking volume about the uses of metadata" (p. 15). This is a fair assessment of the work taken as a whole. In this reviewer's opinion, there is to date no single introductory textbook on metadata that is fully satisfactory for both working catalogers and for library and information science (LIS) students who may or may not have had exposure to cataloging. But there are a handful of excellent books that serve different aspects of that function. These include the following recent publications:
- Caplan, Priscilla. 2003. Metadata fundamentals for all librarians. Chicago: ALA Editions. - Gorman, G.E. and Daniel G. Dorner, eds. 2004. Metadata applications and management. International yearbook of library and information management 2003/2004. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press. - Intner, Sheila S., Susan S. Lazinger and Jean Weihs. 2006. Metadata and its impact on libraries. Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited. - Haynes, David. 2004. Metadata for information management and retrieval. London: Facet. - Hillmann, Diane I. and Elaine L. Westbrooks, eds. 2004. Metadata in practice. Chicago: American Library Association. Metadata: A Cataloger's Primer compares favorably with these texts, and like them has its own special focus and contribution to make to the introductorylevel literature on metadata. Although the focus, purpose, and nature of the contents are different, this volume bears a similarity to the Hillmann and Westbrooks text insofar as it consists of a collection of papers written by various authors tied together by a general, common theme. In conclusion, this volume makes a significant contribution to the handful of books that attempt to present introductory level information about metadata to catalog librarians and students. Although it does not serve fully satisfactorily as a stand-alone textbook for an LIS course nor as a single unified and comprehensive introduction for catalogers, it, like the others mentioned above, could serve as an excellent supplementary LIS course text, and it is highly worthwhile reading for working catalogers who want to learn more about metadata, as well as librarians and instructors already well-versed in metadata topics."

LCSH

Information organization

Subject

Information organization

0.05398133 = product of:
  0.10796266 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 3777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=3777,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3777, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3777)
    0.09582469 = weight(_text_:standards in 3777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09582469 = score(doc=3777,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.42645568 = fieldWeight in 3777, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3777)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Encoded Archival Description (EAD) is an international digital standard based on Extensible Markup Language (XML) for encoding descriptions of archival records. People living their lives as individuals, as members of families, and as members of corporate bodies create and assemble records that serve as instruments for carrying out or documenting the performance of activities. Based on the archival principles of respect des fonds (or provenance) and original order, archivists traditionally have treated all of the records created and assembled by one individual, family, or corporate body as a collection or fonds. Archivists describe records as an essential part of their responsibility for preserving and facilitating access to and use of archives. Archival description provides information essential for establishing the authenticity and completeness of fonds, and serves effective administration, discovery, access, and understanding of records. Traditionally archivists have described each fonds hierarchically in a single apparatus commonly called a finding aid. Until the advent of computing, finding aids were typically in printed form. In the 1990s, archivists created EAD, an encoding standard for archival description. EAD is based technologically on XML and intellectually on General International Standard Archival Description (ISAD(G)), a descriptive framework developed by the International Council of Archives (ICA). As with all standards, EAD will continue to develop in the future. Future changes to EAD will be influenced by ICA descriptive standards that complement ISAD(G) and encoding standards based on them that will complement EAD. This entry is organized into six sections: introduction, archival records, archival description, EAD, history, and future.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.052094016 = product of:
  0.10418803 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 4353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=4353,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4353, 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=4353)
    0.093888626 = weight(_text_:standards in 4353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093888626 = score(doc=4353,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.41783947 = fieldWeight in 4353, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4353)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Footnote

Vortrag, World Library and Information Congress: 71th IFLA General Conference and Council "Libraries - A voyage of discovery", August 14th - 18th 2005, Oslo, Norway.

Series

150 SI - ICABS (IFLA/CDNL Alliance for Bibliographic Standards) ; 060-E

0.051125795 = product of:
  0.10225159 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 1248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=1248,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1248, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1248)
    0.088519044 = weight(_text_:standards in 1248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088519044 = score(doc=1248,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.39394283 = fieldWeight in 1248, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1248)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Einleitung zu den Beiträgen: GUENTHER, R. et al.: New metadata standards for digital resources: MODS and METS; GREENBERG, J.: Metadata generation: processes, people and tools; TENNIS, J.T.: Data collection for controlled vocabulary interoperability: Dublin Core audience element; JUN, W.: A knowledge network constructed by integrating classification, thesaurs and metadata in a digital library

Source

Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 29(2003) no.2, S.11-28

0.051125795 = product of:
  0.10225159 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 1829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=1829,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1829, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1829)
    0.088519044 = weight(_text_:standards in 1829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088519044 = score(doc=1829,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.39394283 = fieldWeight in 1829, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1829)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Metadaten dienen der Beschreibung von Online-Ouellen. Online-Learning braucht fachspezifische Materialien. In diesem Artikel wird die Schnittmenge der beiden betrachtet. Zum einen wird ein Überblick über die Metadaten Standards im Bildungsbereich gegeben, zum anderen werden Beispiele von Portalen angeführt, die (frei verfügbare) Materialien samt Metadatenset anbieten.

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 54(2003) H.6, S.345-348

0.04930618 = product of:
  0.09861236 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 3082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=3082,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3082, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3082)
    0.086596385 = weight(_text_:standards in 3082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.086596385 = score(doc=3082,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.3853863 = fieldWeight in 3082, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3082)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Electronic Cataloging is the undertaking of three pioneers in library science: Sheila S. Intner, Sally C. Tseng, and Mary L. Larsgaard, who co-edited Maps and Related Cartographic Materials: Cataloging Classification, and Bibliographic Control (Haworth, 2000). With illustrations, references, additional reading lists, and case studies, this research tool offers you tips and strategies to make metadata work for you and your library. No one currently involved in information cataloging should be without this book! For a complete list of contents, visit our Web site at www.HaworthPress.com. Electronic Cataloging: AACR2 and Metadata for Serials and Monographs is a collection of papers about recent developments in metadata and its practical applications in cataloging. Acknowledged experts examine a wide variety of techniques for managing serials and monographs using standards and schemas like MARC, AACR2, ISSN, ISBD, and Dublin Core. From the broadest introduction of metadata usage to the revisions of AACR2 through 2000, this book offers vital analysis and strategy for achieving Universal Bibliographic Control. Electronic Cataloging is divided into three parts. The first is an introduction to metadata, what it is, and its relationship to the library in general. The second portion focuses in more an how metadata can be utilized by a library system and the possibilities in the near future. The third portion is very specific, dealing with individual standards of metadata and elements, such as AACR2 and MARC, as well as current policies and prospects for the future. Information covered in Electronic Cataloging includes: an overview of metadata and seriality and why it is important to the cataloging community Universal Bibliographic Control: what has succeeded so far in cataloging and how metadata will evolve the step-by-step process for creating an effective metadata repository for the community the inherent problems that accompany cataloging nonprint research materials, such as electronic serials and the Web metadata schemas and the use of controlled vocabularies and classification systems standards of metadata, including MARC, Dublin Core, RDF, and AACR2, with emphasis an the revisions and efforts made with AACR2 through 2000 an overview of the ISSN (International Serials Standard Number) and its relationships to current codes and metadata standards, including AACR2 and much more!

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: Editors' Introduction (Sheila S. Intner, Sally C. Tseng, and Mary Lynette Larsgaard) PART 1. Cataloging in an Electronic Age (Michael Gorman) Why Metadata? Why Me? Why Now? (Brian E. C. Schottlaender) PART 2. Developing a Metadata Strategy (Grace Agnew) Practical Issues in Applying Metadata Schemas and Controlled Vocabularies to Cultural Heritage Information (Murtha Baca) Digital Resources and Metadata Application in the Shanghai Library (Yuanliang Ma and Wei Liu) Struggling Toward Retrieval: Alternatives to Standard Operating Procedures Can Help Librarians and the Public (Sheila S. Intner) PART 3. AACR2 and Other Metadata Standards: The Way Forward (Ann Huthwaite) AACR2 and Metadata: Library Opportunities in the Global Semantic Web (Barbara B. Tillett) Seriality: What Have We Accomplished? What's Next? (Jean Hirons) MARC and Mark-Up (Erik Jul) ISSN: Dumb Number, Smart Solution (Regina Romano Reynolds) Index Reference Notes Included

Imprint

Binghampton, NY : Haworth Information Press

0.047703102 = product of:
  0.095406204 = sum of:
    0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 5733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017165681 = score(doc=5733,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 5733, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5733)
    0.07824052 = weight(_text_:standards in 5733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07824052 = score(doc=5733,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34819958 = fieldWeight in 5733, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5733)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The goal of cataloging is to provide maximum access to organized information. Archival materials-the unique, unpublished byproducts of the everyday activities of organizations, families, or individuals-are valuable information resources that have been difficult to integrate into the rapidly consolidating bibliographic universe. The formal introduction of Encoded Archival Description (EAD) Version 1.0 in 1998 provided archivists with a powerful tool for overcoming this difficulty. EAD enables the encoding of archival finding aids into records that are platform-independent, machine-readable, and fully searchable, helping to standardize archival descriptive practices while increasing our progress toward union access to archival materials. The related new metadata scheme Encoded Archival Context (EAC) goes further, allowing archivists to encode information about the creators and context of creation of archival materials, and to make that information available to users as an independent resource separate from individual finding aids. This article presents an overview of the role of these metadata standards in the achievement of archival control, featuring a concise guide to the structure and use of EAD (Version 2002) and an introduction to the emerging EAC standard.

0.04765854 = product of:
  0.09531708 = sum of:
    0.07824052 = weight(_text_:standards in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07824052 = score(doc=2651,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34819958 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=2651,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2651, 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=2651)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The digitized version of the only extant copy of Archimedes' key mathematical and scientific works contains over 6,500 images and 130 pages of transcriptions. Metadata is essential for managing, integrating and accessing these digital resources in the Web 2.0 environment. The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set meets many of our needs. It offers the needed flexibility and applicability to a variety of data sets containing different texts and images in a dynamic technical environment. The program team has continued to refine its data dictionary and elements based on the Dublin Core standard and feedback from the Dublin Core community since the 2006 Dublin Core Conference. This presentation cites the application and utility of the DCMI Standards during the final phase of this decade-long program. Since the 2006 conference, the amount of data has grown tenfold with new imaging techniques. Use of the DCMI Standards for integration across digital images and transcriptions will allow the hosting and integration of this data set and other cultural works across service providers, libraries and cultural institutions.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.04722366 = product of:
  0.09444732 = sum of:
    0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 4762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01699316 = score(doc=4762,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 4762, 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=4762)
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 4762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=4762,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 4762, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4762)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

For many years metadata has been recognised as a significant component of the digital information environment. Substantial work has gone into creating complex metadata schemes for describing digital content. Yet increasingly Web search engines, and Google in particular, are the primary means of discovering and selecting digital resources, although they make little use of metadata. This article considers how digital libraries can gain more value from their metadata by adapting it for Google users, while still following well-established principles and standards for cataloguing and digital preservation.

Theme

Information Gateway

0.045808792 = product of:
  0.091617584 = sum of:
    0.025228297 = weight(_text_:information in 4807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025228297 = score(doc=4807,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 4807, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4807)
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 4807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=4807,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 4807, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4807)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

For this fourth column in the IT I-V (information technology interview) series participants actively engaged or interested in the metadata harvesting protocol of the open archives initiative were interviewed. The metadata harvesting initiative targets information generally inaccessible through standard browser searches, such as information stored in databases or within library online public access catalogs. We selected this topic as an information technology-based initiative with the potential to provide information about the usefulness of metadata: in particular the Dublin Core metadata standard, but also about other metadata standards, as the protocol design supports community-specific schemas as well. The group interviewed represents developers, commercial information providers, funders, and members of the scholarly publishing community. Along with learning about the interests and concerns of each of these stakeholders and about specific applications of the protocol, we identify potential questions that will ultimately need to be addressed.

0.04473507 = product of:
  0.08947014 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 5775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=5775,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5775, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5775)
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 5775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=5775,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 5775, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5775)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Die meisten Intranets stehen vor einem Informationsinfarkt - es fehlt in den Organisationen vielfach an klaren Rollenkonzepten zur Eingabe, Pflege und Weiterentwicklung der Intranets, vor allem aber auch an methodischen Grundsätzen zur Erfassung und Erschließung der verschiedenartigen Informationen. In diesem Beitrag werden die Grundkonzepte zur Meta-Strukturierung beschrieben, eine erprobte Vorgehensweise bei der Implementierung entsprechender Standards erarbeitet und zur besseren Illustration an konkreten Beispielen dargestellt

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

0.04473507 = product of:
  0.08947014 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 4559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=4559,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4559, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4559)
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 4559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=4559,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 4559, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4559)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Die Interoperabilität von Metadaten ist eine wichtige Voraussetzung für das Generieren von Information und Wissen in einer vernetzten Welt. Aus diesem Grund entstehen seit Mitte der Neunziger Jahre verschiedene Standards mit dem Ziel, die Interoperabilität von Metadaten zu erhöhen. Genannt seien hier vor allem DCMES und DCAM, RDF und SKOS. Aufgabe von KIM ist es, diese Entwicklungen zu begleiten und in die deutschsprachige Community zu tragen. Dabei bietet KIM neben reinen Informationsangeboten (z. B. in Form von Übersetzungen, Vorträgen und Handreichungen) auch konkrete Unterstützung in Form von Schulungen und Beratungen an.

0.043494053 = product of:
  0.08698811 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 4697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=4697,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4697, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4697)
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 4697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=4697,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 4697, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4697)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The range of metadata activity over this last decade is both extensive and astonishing, and substantiates metadata as an integral part of our digital information infrastructure. This entry begins with a brief history of metadata relating to digital information, followed by an overview of different metadata types, functions, and domain-specific definitions. Next, the family of standards comprising a metadata architecture are defined, followed by an overview of metadata generation processes, applications, and people: this latter section gives particular attention to automatic metadata generation approaches. The following section explores four key metadata models. The conclusion summarizes the entry, highlights a number of significant metadata challenges, and notes efforts underway to address metadata challenges in the new millennium.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.041733973 = product of:
  0.16693589 = sum of:
    0.16693589 = sum of:
      0.08496841 = weight(_text_:organization in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08496841 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.47270393 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
      0.08196748 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08196748 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Beitrag anläßlich des Seminars "Tools for knowledge organization - ISKO UK Seminar", 4. September 2007.

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.040900342 = product of:
  0.081800684 = sum of:
    0.03398632 = weight(_text_:information in 4407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03398632 = score(doc=4407,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.3840108 = fieldWeight in 4407, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4407)
    0.047814365 = product of:
      0.09562873 = sum of:
        0.09562873 = weight(_text_:22 in 4407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09562873 = score(doc=4407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4407, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

28. 3.2002 9:22:34

Source

Government information quarterly. 18(2001) S.155-165

0.040477425 = product of:
  0.08095485 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 5727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=5727,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 5727, 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=5727)
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 5727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=5727,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 5727, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5727)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) is a data communication standard for encoding descriptive, administrative, and structural metadata regarding objects within a digital library, expressed using the XML Schema Language of the World Wide Web Consortium. An initiative of the Digital Library Federation, METS is under development by an international editorial board and is maintained in the Network Development and MARC Standards Office of the Library of Congress. Designed in conformance with the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) Reference Model, a METS document encapsulates digital objects and metadata as Information Packages for transmitting and/or exchanging digital objects to and from digital repositories, disseminating digital objects via the Web, and archiving digital objects for long-term preservation and access. This paper presents an introduction to the METS standard and through illustrated examples, demonstrates how to build a METS document.