Search (114 results, page 6 of 6)

0.007663213 = product of:
  0.015326426 = sum of:
    0.015326426 = product of:
      0.030652853 = sum of:
        0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030652853 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With the explosion of digitized resources accessible via networked information systems, and the corresponding proliferation of general purpose and domain-specific schemes, metadata have assumed a special prominence. While recent work emanating from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has focused on the Resource Description Framework (RDF) to support the interoperability of metadata standards - thus converting metatags from diverse domains from merely "machine-readable" to "machine-understandable" - the next iteration, to "human-understandable," remains a challenge. This apparent gap provides a framework for three-phase research (Howarth, 1999) to develop a tool which will provide a "human-understandable" front-end search assist to any XML-compliant metadata scheme. Findings from phase one, the analyses and mapping of seven metadata schemes, identify the particular challenges of designing a common "namespace", populated with element tags which are appropriately descriptive, yet readily understood by a lay searcher, when there is little congruence within, and a high degree of variability across, the metadata schemes under study. Implications for the subsequent design and testing of both the proposed "metalevel ontology" (phase two), and the prototype search assist tool (phase three) are examined

0.007663213 = product of:
  0.015326426 = sum of:
    0.015326426 = product of:
      0.030652853 = sum of:
        0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030652853 = score(doc=824,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 824, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=824)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We discuss the issues of resolving the information-retrieval problem in large digital collections through the identification and use of document genres. Explicit identification of genre seems particularly important for such collections because any search usually retrieves documents with a diversity of genres that are undifferentiated by obvious clues as to their identity. Also, because most genres are characterized by both form and purpose, identifying the genre of a document provides information as to the document's purpose and its fit to the user's situation, which can be otherwise difficult to assess. We begin by outlining the possible role of genre identification in the information-retrieval process. Our assumption is that genre identification would enhance searching, first because we know that topic alone is not enough to define an information problem and, second, because search results containing genre information would be more easily understandable. Next, we discuss how information professionals have traditionally tackled the issues of representing genre in settings where topical representation is the norm. Finally, we address the issues of studying the efficacy of identifying genre in large digital collections. Because genre is often an implicit notion, studying it in a systematic way presents many problems. We outline a research protocol that would provide guidance for identifying Web document genres, for observing how genre is used in searching and evaluating search results, and finally for representing and visualizing genres.

0.007663213 = product of:
  0.015326426 = sum of:
    0.015326426 = product of:
      0.030652853 = sum of:
        0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 1237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030652853 = score(doc=1237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1237, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1237)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Metadata is a keystone component for a broad spectrum of applications that are emerging on the Web to help stitch together content and services and make them more visible to users. The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) has led the development of structured metadata to support resource discovery. This international community has, over a period of 6 years and 8 workshops, brought forth: * A core standard that enhances cross-disciplinary discovery and has been translated into 25 languages to date; * A conceptual framework that supports the modular development of auxiliary metadata components; * An open consensus building process that has brought to fruition Australian, European and North American standards with promise as a global standard for resource discovery; * An open community of hundreds of practitioners and theorists who have found a common ground of principles, procedures, core semantics, and a framework to support interoperable metadata. The 8th Dublin Core Metadata Workshop capped an active year of progress that included standardization of the 15-element core foundation and approval of an initial array of Dublin Core Qualifiers. While there is important work to be done to promote stability and increased adoption of the Dublin Core, the time has come to look beyond the core elements towards a broader metadata agenda. This report describes the new mission statement of the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) that supports the agenda, recapitulates the important milestones of the year 2000, outlines activities of the 8th DCMI workshop in Ottawa, and summarizes the 2001 workplan.

0.007663213 = product of:
  0.015326426 = sum of:
    0.015326426 = product of:
      0.030652853 = sum of:
        0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030652853 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to forecast the changing roles of librarians - especially catalogers and metadata specialists - in today's technology-driven research, teaching, and learning environments, in which information seekers behave more and more self-sufficiently and move well beyond library collections in their pursuit of information. Design/methodology/approach - Places the roles of librarians and library collections in the larger context of knowledge management and campus information network processes, which occur in every knowledge community, with or without a library. Explores and provides examples of how knowledge creators can collaborate with information technology experts and librarians to transform how faculty members teach and conduct research; how students learn; and how libraries support these activities. Findings - Librarians need to make their collections and services much more visible through human and technological interconnections and greatly improved delivery of information content. Metadata and metadata specialists are strategic assets for libraries, but the service model for cataloging faces critical challenges. Two tables list these challenges and the implications for metadata specialists. Originality/value - Offers new observations and insights into how librarians can continue to contribute to saving information seekers' time and advancing the state of knowledge in the increasingly interconnected world of the web. Drawing from the larger context of the global infosphere, information-seeking behavior, and changing roles for library collections and information systems, forecasts the role of metadata and metadata specialists in libraries.

0.007663213 = product of:
  0.015326426 = sum of:
    0.015326426 = product of:
      0.030652853 = sum of:
        0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 3230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030652853 = score(doc=3230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3230, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3230)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Dieses Dokument beschreibt das Abstraktmodell für Dublin-Core-Metadaten. Ziel des Dokuments ist es vor allem, die Elemente und Strukturen, die in Dublin-Core-Metadaten verwendet werden, zu benennen. Das Dokument definiert die verwendeten Elemente und beschreibt, wie sie miteinander kombiniert werden, um Informationsstrukturen zu bilden. Es stellt ein von jeglicher besonderen Codierungssyntax unabhängiges Informationsmodell dar. Ein solches Informationsmodell macht es uns möglich, die Beschreibungen, die wir codieren wollen, besser zu verstehen und erleichtert die Entwicklung besserer Mappings und syntaxübergreifender Datenkonvertierungen. Dieses Dokument richtet sich in erster Linie an Entwickler von Softwareanwendungen, die Dublin-Core-Metadaten unterstützen, an Personen, die neue syntaktische Codierungsrichtlinien für Dublin-Core-Metadaten entwickeln und an Personen, die Metadatenprofile entwickeln, die auf DCMI- oder anderen kompatibelen Vokabularen basieren. Das DCMI-Abstraktmodell basiert auf der Arbeit des World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) am Resource Description Framework (RDF). Die Verwendung von Konzepten aus RDF wird unten im Abschnitt 5 zusammengefasst. Das DCMI-Abstraktmodell wird hier mit UML-Klassen-Diagrammen dargestellt. Für Leser, die solche UML-Klassen-Diagramme nicht kennen, eine kurze Anleitung: Linien, die in einem Maßpfeil enden, werden als 'ist' oder 'ist eine' gelesen (z.B. "value ist eine resource"). Linien, die mit einer Raute beginnen, werden als 'hat' oder 'hat eine' gelesen (z.B. "statement hat einen property URI"). Andere Beziehungen werden entsprechend gekennzeichnet. Die kursiv geschriebenen Wörter und Phrasen in diesem Dokument werden im Abschnitt 7 ("Terminologie") definiert. Wir danken Dan Brickley, Rachel Heery, Alistair Miles, Sarah Pulis, den Mitgliedern des DCMI Usage Board und den Mitgliedern der DCMI Architecture Community für ihr Feedback zu den vorangegangenen Versionen dieses Dokuments.

0.007058638 = product of:
  0.014117276 = sum of:
    0.014117276 = product of:
      0.028234553 = sum of:
        0.028234553 = weight(_text_:22 in 5650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028234553 = score(doc=5650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5650, 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=5650)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

11. 3.2001 17:10:22

0.007058638 = product of:
  0.014117276 = sum of:
    0.014117276 = product of:
      0.028234553 = sum of:
        0.028234553 = weight(_text_:22 in 2664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028234553 = score(doc=2664,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2664, 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=2664)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.006502452 = product of:
  0.013004904 = sum of:
    0.013004904 = product of:
      0.026009807 = sum of:
        0.026009807 = weight(_text_:web in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026009807 = score(doc=4872,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.15297705 = fieldWeight in 4872, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4872)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"1. Die Konferenz Vom 12. bis 15. September 2005 fand in Leganés (Madrid) die "International Conference an Dublin Core and Metadata Applications" mit dem Thema "Vocabularies in Practice" statt [DC2005]. Gastgeber war der Fachbereich Bibliothekswesen und Dokumentation der "Universidad Carlos III de Madrid" zusammen mit dem Institut "Agustin Millares" für Dokumentation und Wissensmanagement. Den 214 Teilnehmern aus 33 Ländern wurden 14 ausführliche und 18 Kurzpräsentationen geboten sowie zehn "Special Sessions" [DC2005-PAPERS]. Fünf Einführungsseminare zu Themen der Metadaten und maschinell verarbeitbarer Thesauri wurden abgehalten. Die Hauptreden der vier Konferenztage wurden von Thomas Baker (Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen), Ricardo Baeza (University of Chile), Johannes Keizer (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) und Eric Miller (World Wide Web Consortium) gehalten. Plenarvorträge wurden simultan ins Spanische übersetzt und mehrere Treffen wurden in französischer oder spanischer Sprache abgehalten. Die Dublin-Core-Konferenz ist auch das zentrale Ereignis des Jahres für die Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) als Organisation. Vor und nach der Konferenz tagten das DCMI Board of Trustees, ein Gremium aus Metadatenexperten und nationalen Vertretern ("Affiliates"); das "Usage Board", das den Standard inhaltlich verwaltet, und das "Advisory Board", das hauptsächlich aus Leitern von DCMI-Arbeitsgruppen besteht. Während der Konferenz haben sich vierzehn Arbeitsgruppen zu speziellen Fragen im Bereich Metadaten getroffen. 2. Von der Kernsemantik zum Modell "Zehn Jahre Dublin Core" war der Hintergrund für die Keynote-Präsehtation von Thomas Baker, DCMI Director of Specifications and Documentation. März 1995 fand in Dublin (Ohio) der Workshop statt, auf dem die Kernelemente erstmals entworfen wurden - Creator, Subject, Date, usw. - die der Initiative den Namen gegeben haben. Dieser "Dublin Core" wurde 1998 bei der Internet Engineering Task Force als Request for Comments (RFC 2413) publiziert, 2000 formal als Standard in Europa (CWA 13874/2000 bei CEN), 2001 in den USA (Z39.95 bei NISO) und 2003 international (ISO 15836/2003) anerkannt [DUBLINCORE]. Am Anfang wurde der Dublin Core als Datenformat konzipiert - d.h. als streng festgelegte Vorlage für digitale Karteikarten. Bereits früh wurden die Elemente jedoch als Vokabular aufgefasst, d.h. als Satz prinzipiell rekombinierbarer Elemente für Beschreibungen, die den Anforderungen spezifischer Anwendungsbereiche angepasst werden konnten - kurz, als Bausteine für Anwendungsprofile. Ausgehend von der vermeintlich simplen Aufgabe, Webseiten auf einfache Art zu beschreiben, hat sich ab 1997 in gegenseitiger Beeinflussung mit der sich entwickelnden Webtechnik von HTML bis hin zu XML und RDF ein allgemeines Modell für Metadaten herauskristallisiert.
Im März 2005 hat die DCMI mit der Verabschiedung des so genannten "Abstrakten Modells" einen wichtigen Meilenstein erreicht. Dieses DC-Modell ist die formale Grammatik der Metadatensprache, die sich im Laufe der Jahre entwickelt hat. Es hat eine gemeinsame Wurzel mit dem Modell des Semantic Web beim W3C und teilt dessen Grundstruktur, bleibt jedoch absichtlich einfacher als die voll entwickelten Ontologiesprachen des letzteren. Das abstrakte Modell dient als Maßstab für den systematischen Vergleich verschiedenartiger Implementierungstechniken in Bezug auf deren Ausdrucksfähigkeit. Ein hierarchisch aufgebautes XML-Schema kann beispielsweise Metainformationen differenzierter übertragen als ein HTML-Webdokument mit einem flachen Satz eingebetteter META-Tags. Dagegen kann RDF expliziter als ein XML-Schema die Semantik einer Beschreibung in einen größeren semantischen Zusammenhang verankern und somit die Rekombinierbarkeit der Daten erleichtern. In der Praxis müssen Systementwickler sich für die eine oder andere Implementierungstechnik entscheiden, dabei liefern die Metadaten nur eines von mehreren Kriterien. Das DC-Modell bietet eine Basis für den Vergleich der möglichen Lösungen in Hinblick auf die Unterstützung von Metadaten und dient somit als Vorbereitung für deren spätere Integration. Die Interoperabilität der Metadaten ist aber nicht nur eine Frage einer gemeinsamen Semantik mit einem gemeinsamen Modell. Wie auch bei menschlichen Sprachen wird die Interoperabilität umso vollkommener, je besser die Sprachgebräuche verstanden werden - d.h. die Katalogisierungsregeln, die den Metadaten zugrunde liegen. Die Metadatenregeln, die innerhalb einer Anwendungsgemeinschaft benutzt werden, sind Gegenstand eines so genannten Anwendungsprofils. Viele DCMI-Arbeitsgruppen sehen ihre Hauptaufgabe darin, ein Anwendungsprofil für ein bestimmtes Arbeitsgebiet zu erstellen (siehe Abschnitt 6, unten). Diesem Trend zufolge orientiert sich das DCMI Usage Board zunehmend auf die Überprüfung ganzer Anwendungsprofile auf Übereinstimmung mit dem DCMI-Modell."

0.0061305705 = product of:
  0.012261141 = sum of:
    0.012261141 = product of:
      0.024522282 = sum of:
        0.024522282 = weight(_text_:web in 1254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024522282 = score(doc=1254,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 1254, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1254)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge management in digital libraries is a universal problem. Keyword-based searching is applied everywhere no matter whether the resources are indexed databases or full-text Web pages. In keyword matching, the valuable content description and indexing of the metadata, such as the subject descriptors and the classification notations, are merely treated as common keywords to be matched with the user query. Without the support of vocabulary control tools, such as classification systems and thesauri, the intelligent labor of content analysis, description and indexing in metadata production are seriously wasted. New retrieval paradigms are needed to exploit the potential of the metadata resources. Could classification and thesauri, which contain the condensed intelligence of generations of librarians, be used in a digital library to organize the networked information, especially metadata, to facilitate their usability and change the digital library into a knowledge management environment? To examine that question, we designed and implemented a new paradigm that incorporates a classification system, a thesaurus and metadata. The classification and the thesaurus are merged into a concept network, and the metadata are distributed into the nodes of the concept network according to their subjects. The abstract concept node instantiated with the related metadata records becomes a knowledge node. A coherent and consistent knowledge network is thus formed. It is not only a framework for resource organization but also a structure for knowledge navigation, retrieval and learning. We have built an experimental system based on the Chinese Classification and Thesaurus, which is the most comprehensive and authoritative in China, and we have incorporated more than 5000 bibliographic records in the computing domain from the Peking University Library. The result is encouraging. In this article, we review the tools, the architecture and the implementation of our experimental system, which is called Vision.

0.0061305705 = product of:
  0.012261141 = sum of:
    0.012261141 = product of:
      0.024522282 = sum of:
        0.024522282 = weight(_text_:web in 1547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024522282 = score(doc=1547,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 1547, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1547)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Digitales Bibliotheksgut bildet neben dem Verbundsystem und Lokalsystemen schon seit einigen Jahren einen der Schwerpunkte des Bibliotheksservice-Zentrum Baden-Württemberg (BSZ). Dazu wurden in einer Reihe von Projekten unterschiedliche Gesichtspunkte dieser vergleichsweise neuen Medien berücksichtigt. Viele dieser Projekte sind mittlerweile abgeschlossen, einige in einen regelrechten Routinebetrieb übergegangen. Video- und Audiofiles, aber auch Image- und Textdateien stellen zunächst durch ihre technische Form spezielle Anforderungen an ihre Erzeugung, Aufbewahrung und Nutzung. Daran schließt sich die Entwicklung geeigneter Verfahren und Hilfsmittel zur Verzeichnung und Erschließung an. Spezielle Suchmaschinen und Austauschprotokolle ermöglichen ein adäquates Retrieval elektronischer Ressourcen und ihre Distribution. Ein eigenes Feld stellt der Einsatz von multimedialen Lehr- und Lernmaterialien im Hochschulunterricht dar. Die technischen Eigenschaften und Möglichkeiten führen darüber hinaus zu anderen inhaltlichen Strukturen als bei "konventioneller" Literatur und schließlich zu einer andersartigen rechtlichen Verortung dieser Bestände. Zu allen diesen Themen war das BSZ tätig, meist in Kooperationen mit Partnern wie z.B. den OPUS-Anwendern oder der DLmeta-Initative. Im Mittelpunkt dieses Engagements steht der Virtuelle Medienserver, der die Metadaten der dezentral vorgehaltenen Objekte enthält, diese über Hyperlinks erreichen kann und der mit der Verbunddatenbank synchronisiert ist. Die "digitale" Bibliotheksarbeit orientiert sich dabei an den Methoden und Prinzipien der "analogen" Bibliotheksarbeit, passt diese teils den neuen, digitalen Möglichkeiten an, insbesondere der Online-Zugänglichkeit, vermeidet aber Brüche in den Nachweisinstrumenten. Im Folgenden soll dies an vier zentralen Aspekten deutlich gemacht werden, die Teil jeder Bibliotheksarbeit sind und entsprechend in aktuellen Projekten der Digital Library im BSZ ihren Niederschlag finden: Recherche- und Zugangsmöglichkeiten oder "Portale", Inhalte und Medien oder "Content", Regelwerke und Formate oder "Metadaten", Sprachverwendung oder "Normvokabular und Klassifikationen". Illustriert werden diese Themen anhand aktueller Projekte, zunächst die Sprachverwendung anhand des BAM-Portals: Das BAM-Portal wird in einem DFG-Projekt in Kooperation des BSZ mit der Landesarchivdirektion Baden-Württemberg und dem Landesmuseum für Technik und Arbeit entwickelt. Es zielt darauf ab, in Bibliotheken, Archiven und Museen vorhandene digitale Bestände unter einer einheitlichen Oberfläche übers World Wide Web zugänglich zu machen. Eine Recherche im BAMPortal führt auf eine fachübergreifende Trefferliste, in der jeder Treffer über Internetlinks mit einer ausführlichen, herkunftsgerechten Beschreibung verknüpft ist. Von dort ist gegebenenfalls ein zugehöriges Digitalisat bzw. eine multimediale Veranschaulichung erreichbar. Da übliche Suchaspekte, wie der Autor für Literatur oder die Provenienz für das Archivalien im gemeinsamen Kontext nicht fachübergreifende Resultate ergeben, treten hier themenbezogene Recherchen in den Vordergrund. Daher widmen wir im BAM-Portal der thematischen Erschließung der verschiedenen Datenbestände die größte Aufmerksamkeit.

0.0061305705 = product of:
  0.012261141 = sum of:
    0.012261141 = product of:
      0.024522282 = sum of:
        0.024522282 = weight(_text_:web in 5732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024522282 = score(doc=5732,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 5732, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5732)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0061305705 = product of:
  0.012261141 = sum of:
    0.012261141 = product of:
      0.024522282 = sum of:
        0.024522282 = weight(_text_:web in 1199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024522282 = score(doc=1199,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 1199, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1199)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

On 18 November 2002, at a meeting organised by the CORES Project (Information Society Technologies Programme, European Union), several organisations regarded as maintenance authorities for metadata elements achieved consensus on a resolution to assign Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) to metadata elements as a useful first step towards the development of mapping infrastructures and interoperability services. The signatories of the CORES Resolution agreed to promote this consensus in their communities and beyond and to implement an action plan in the following six months. Six months having passed, the maintainers of GILS, ONIX, MARC 21, CERIF, DOI, IEEE/LOM, and Dublin Core report on their implementations of the resolution and highlight issues of relevance to establishing good-practice conventions for declaring, identifying, and maintaining metadata elements more generally. In June 2003, the resolution was also endorsed by the maintainers of UNIMARC. The "Resolution on Metadata Element Identifiers", or CORES Resolution, is an agreement among the maintenance organisations for several major metadata standards - GILS, ONIX, MARC 21, UNIMARC, CERIF, DOI®, IEEE/LOM, and Dublin Core - to identify their metadata elements using Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs). The Uniform Resource Identifier, defined in the IETF RFC 2396 as "a compact string of characters for identifying an abstract or physical resource", has been promoted for use as a universal form of identification by the World Wide Web Consortium. The CORES Resolution, formulated at a meeting organised by the European project CORES in November 2002, included a commitment to publicise the consensus statement to a wider audience of metadata standards initiatives and to implement key points of the agreement within the following six months - specifically, to define URI assignment mechanisms, assign URIs to elements, and formulate policies for the persistence of those URIs. This article marks the passage of six months by reporting on progress made in implementing this common action plan. After presenting the text of the CORES Resolution and its three "clarifications", the article summarises the position of each signatory organisation towards assigning URIs to its metadata elements, noting any practical or strategic problems that may have emerged. These progress reports were based on input from Thomas Baker, José Borbinha, Eliot Christian, Erik Duval, Keith Jeffery, Rebecca Guenther, and Norman Paskin. The article closes with a few general observations about these first steps towards the clarification of shared conventions for the identification of metadata elements and perhaps, one can hope, towards the ultimate goal of improving interoperability among a diversity of metadata communities.

0.0061305705 = product of:
  0.012261141 = sum of:
    0.012261141 = product of:
      0.024522282 = sum of:
        0.024522282 = weight(_text_:web in 1208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024522282 = score(doc=1208,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 1208, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1208)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

For those of us still struggling with basic concepts regarding metadata in this brave new world in which cataloging means much more than MARC, an article like this is welcome indeed. In this 30.000-foot overview of the metadata landscape, broad issues such as modularity, namespaces, extensibility, refinement, and multilingualism are discussed. In addition, "practicalities" like application profiles, syntax and semantics, metadata registries, and automated generation of metadata are explained. Although this piece is not exhaustive of high-level metadata issues, it is nonetheless a useful description of some of the most important issues surrounding metadata creation and use. The rapid changes in the means of information access occasioned by the emergence of the World Wide Web have spawned an upheaval in the means of describing and managing information resources. Metadata is a primary tool in this work, and an important link in the value chain of knowledge economies. Yet there is much confusion about how metadata should be integrated into information systems. How is it to be created or extended? Who will manage it? How can it be used and exchanged? Whence comes its authority? Can different metadata standards be used together in a given environment? These and related questions motivate this paper. The authors hope to make explicit the strong foundations of agreement shared by two prominent metadata Initiatives: the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) and the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Learning Object Metadata (LOM) Working Group. This agreement emerged from a joint metadata taskforce meeting in Ottawa in August, 2001. By elucidating shared principles and practicalities of metadata, we hope to raise the level of understanding among our respective (and shared) constituents, so that all stakeholders can move forward more decisively to address their respective problems. The ideas in this paper are divided into two categories. Principles are those concepts judged to be common to all domains of metadata and which might inform the design of any metadata schema or application. Practicalities are the rules of thumb, constraints, and infrastructure issues that emerge from bringing theory into practice in the form of useful and sustainable systems.

0.0038316066 = product of:
  0.007663213 = sum of:
    0.007663213 = product of:
      0.015326426 = sum of:
        0.015326426 = weight(_text_:web in 133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015326426 = score(doc=133,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.09014259 = fieldWeight in 133, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=133)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

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: