Search (116 results, page 2 of 6)

0.0041003237 = product of:
  0.01230097 = sum of:
    0.01230097 = product of:
      0.02460194 = sum of:
        0.02460194 = weight(_text_:of in 1288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02460194 = score(doc=1288,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 1288, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1288)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Metadata quality presents a challenge faced by many digital repositories. There is a variety of proposed quality assurance frameworks applied in repositories that are deployed in various contexts. Although studies report that there is an improvement of the quality of the metadata in many of the applications, the transfer of a successful approach from one application context to another has not been studied to a satisfactory extent. This article presents the empirical results of the application of a metadata quality assurance process that has been developed and successfully applied in an educational context (learning repositories) to 2 different application contexts to compare results with the previous application and assess its generalizability. More specifically, it reports results from the adaptation and application of this process in a library context (institutional repositories) and in a cultural context (digital cultural repositories). Initial empirical findings indicate that content providers seem to be gaining a better understanding of metadata when the proposed process is put in place and that the quality of the produced metadata records increases.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.6, S.1202-1216

0.0041003237 = product of:
  0.01230097 = sum of:
    0.01230097 = product of:
      0.02460194 = sum of:
        0.02460194 = weight(_text_:of in 4096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02460194 = score(doc=4096,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 4096, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4096)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This new and updated second edition of a classic text provides a thought-provoking introduction to metadata for all library and information students and professionals. Metadata for Information Management and Retrieval has been fully revised by David Haynes to bring it up to date with new technology and standards. The new edition, containing new chapters on Metadata Standards and Encoding Schemes, assesses the current theory and practice of metadata and examines key developments in terms of both policy and technology. Coverage includes: an introduction to the concept of metadata a description of the main components of metadata systems and standards an overview of the scope of metadata and its applications a description of typical information retrieval issues in corporate and research environments a demonstration of ways in which metadata is used to improve retrieval a look at ways in which metadata is used to manage information consideration of the role of metadata in information governance.

0.0040669674 = product of:
  0.012200902 = sum of:
    0.012200902 = product of:
      0.024401804 = sum of:
        0.024401804 = weight(_text_:of in 3346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024401804 = score(doc=3346,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 3346, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3346)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this paper we describe the creation and use of metadata on the early Arpanet as part of normal network function. By using the Arpanet Host-Host Protocol and its sockets as an entry point for studying the generation of metadata, we show that the development and function of key Arpanet infrastructure can be studied by examining the creation and stabilization of metadata. More specifically, we use the Host-Host Protocol's sockets as an example of something that, at the level of the network, functions as both network infrastructure and metadata simultaneously. By presenting the function of sockets in tandem with an overview of the Host-Host Protocol, we argue for the further integrated study of infrastructure and metadata. Finally, we reintroduce the concept of infradata to refer specifically to data that locate data throughout an infrastructure and are required by the infrastructure to function, separating them from established and stabilized standards. We argue for the future application of infradata as a concept for the study of histories and political economies of networks, bridging the largely library and information science (LIS) study of metadata with the largely science and technology studies (STS) domain of infrastructure.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.2, S.412-422

0.0040669674 = product of:
  0.012200902 = sum of:
    0.012200902 = product of:
      0.024401804 = sum of:
        0.024401804 = weight(_text_:of in 5340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024401804 = score(doc=5340,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 5340, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5340)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the underlying meanings, effects and cultural patterns of metadata standards, focusing on Dublin Core (DC), and explore the ways in which anticolonial metadata tools can be applied to exercise and promote Indigenous data sovereignty. Design/methodology/approach Applying an anticolonial approach, this paper examines the assumptions underpinning the stated roles of two of DC's metadata elements, rights and creator. Based on that examination, the paper considers the limitations of DC for appropriately documenting Indigenous traditional knowledge (TK). Introduction of the TK labels and their implementation are put forward as an alternative method to such limitations in metadata standards. Findings The analysis of the rights and creator elements revealed that DC's universality and supposed neutrality threaten the rightful attribution, specificity and dynamism of TK, undermining Indigenous data sovereignty. The paper advocates for alternative descriptive methods grounded within tribal sovereignty values while recognizing the difficulties of dealing with issues of interoperability by means of metadata standards given potentially innate tendencies to customization within communities. Originality/value This is the first paper to directly examine the implications of DC's rights and creator elements for documenting TK. The paper identifies ethical practices and culturally appropriate tools that unsettle the universality claims of metadata standards. By introducing the TK labels, the paper contributes to the efforts of Indigenous communities to regain control and ownership of their cultural and intellectual property.

Source

Journal of documentation. 75(2019) no.4, S.731-749

0.003945538 = product of:
  0.0118366135 = sum of:
    0.0118366135 = product of:
      0.023673227 = sum of:
        0.023673227 = weight(_text_:of in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023673227 = score(doc=2392,freq=32.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 2392, product of:
              5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
                32.0 = termFreq=32.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2392)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Research Data repositories are growing in terms of volume rapidly and exponentially. Their main goal is to provide scientists the essential mechanism to store, share, and re-use datasets generated at various stages of the research process. Despite the fact that metadata play an important role for research data management in the context of these repositories, several factors - such as the big volume of data and its complex lifecycles, as well as operational constraints related to financial resources and human factors - may impede the effectiveness of several metadata elements. The aim of the research reported in this paper was to perform a descriptive analysis of the DC.Subject metadata element and to identify its data quality problems in the context of the Dryad research data repository. In order to address this aim a total of 4.557 packages and 13.638 data files were analysed following a data-preprocessing method. The findings showed emerging trends about the subject coverage of the repository (e.g. the most popular subjects and the authors that contributed the most for these subjects). Also, quality problems related to the lack of controlled vocabulary and standardisation were very common. This study has implications for the evaluation of metadata and the improvement of the quality of the research data annotation process.

0.003925761 = product of:
  0.011777283 = sum of:
    0.011777283 = product of:
      0.023554565 = sum of:
        0.023554565 = weight(_text_:of in 5032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023554565 = score(doc=5032,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 5032, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5032)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper analyzes the information content of metadata and full texts in German Medical Science (GMS) articles in English language. The object of the study is to compare semantic entities that are used to enrich GMS metadata (titles and abstracts) and GMS full texts. The aim of the study is to test whether using full texts increases the value added information. The comparison and evaluation of semantic entities was done statistically. Measures of descriptive statistics were gathered for this purpose. In addition to the ratio of central tendencies and scatterings, we computed the overlaps and complements of the values. The results show a distinct increase of information when full texts are added. On average, metadata contain 25 different entities and full texts 215. 89% of the concepts in the metadata are also represented in the full texts. Hence, 11% of the metadata concepts are found in the metadata only. In summary, the results show that the addition of full texts increases the informational value, e.g. for information retrieval processes.

0.0039058835 = product of:
  0.01171765 = sum of:
    0.01171765 = product of:
      0.0234353 = sum of:
        0.0234353 = weight(_text_:of in 1587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0234353 = score(doc=1587,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 1587, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1587)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Automatic enrichment of collections connects data to vocabularies, which supports the contextualization of content and adds searchable text to metadata. The paper introduces a framework of four dimensions (frequency, coverage, relevance and error rate) that measure both the suitability of the enrichment for the object and the enrichments' contribution to search success. To verify the framework, it is applied to the evaluation of automatic enrichments in the digital library Europeana. The analysis of 100 result sets and their corresponding queries (1,121 documents total) shows the framework is a valuable tool for guiding enrichments and determining the value of enrichment efforts.

0.0039058835 = product of:
  0.01171765 = sum of:
    0.01171765 = product of:
      0.0234353 = sum of:
        0.0234353 = weight(_text_:of in 1963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0234353 = score(doc=1963,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 1963, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The National Library of Latvia (NLL) made a decision to use the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) in 2000. At present the NLL Subject Headings Database in Latvian holds approximately 34,000 subject headings and is used for subject cataloging of textual resources, including articles from serials. For digital objects NLL uses a system like Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST). We succesfully use it in the project "In Search of Lost Latvia," one of the milestones in the development of the subject cataloging of digital resources in Latvia.

0.003865822 = product of:
  0.011597466 = sum of:
    0.011597466 = product of:
      0.023194931 = sum of:
        0.023194931 = weight(_text_:of in 4779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023194931 = score(doc=4779,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 4779, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4779)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira

0.0038202507 = product of:
  0.011460752 = sum of:
    0.011460752 = product of:
      0.022921504 = sum of:
        0.022921504 = weight(_text_:of in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022921504 = score(doc=3707,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 3707, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3707)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is threefold: to focus on the process of multilingual concept scheme construction and the challenges involved; to addresses concrete challenges faced in the construction process and especially those related to equivalence between terms and concepts; and to briefly outlines the translation strategies developed during the process of concept scheme construction. Design/methodology/approach The analysis is based on experience acquired during the establishment of the Finnish thesaurus and ontology service Finto as well as the trilingual General Finnish Ontology YSO, both of which are being maintained and further developed at the National Library of Finland. Findings Although uniform resource identifiers can be considered language-independent, they do not render concept schemes and their construction free of language-related challenges. The fundamental issue with all the challenges faced is how to maintain consistency and predictability when the nature of language requires each concept to be treated individually. The key to such challenges is to recognise the function of the vocabulary and the needs of its intended users. Social implications Open science increases the transparency of not only research products, but also metadata tools. Gaining a deeper understanding of the challenges involved in their construction is important for a great variety of users - e.g. indexers, vocabulary builders and information seekers. Today, multilingualism is an essential aspect at both the national and international information society level. Originality/value This paper draws on the practical challenges faced in concept scheme construction in a trilingual environment, with a focus on "concept scheme" as a translation and mapping unit.

Source

Journal of documentation. 73(2017) no.3, S.451-465

0.0038202507 = product of:
  0.011460752 = sum of:
    0.011460752 = product of:
      0.022921504 = sum of:
        0.022921504 = weight(_text_:of in 3946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022921504 = score(doc=3946,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 3946, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate tag use in a metadata ecosystem that supports a fan work repository to identify functions of tags and explore the system as a co-constructed communicative context. Design/methodology/approach Using modified techniques from grounded theory (Charmaz, 2007), this paper integrates humanistic and social science methods to identify kinds of tag use in a rich setting. Findings Three primary roles of tags emerge out of detailed study of the metadata ecosystem: tags can identify elements in the fan work, tags can reflect on how those elements are used or adapted in the fan work, and finally, tags can express the fan author's sense of her role in the discursive context of the fan work repository. Attending to each of the tag roles shifts focus away from just what tags say to include how they say it. Practical implications Instead of building metadata systems designed solely for retrieval or description, this research suggests that it may be fruitful to build systems that recognize various metadata functions and allow for expressivity. This research also suggests that attending to metadata previously considered unusable in systems may reflect the participants' sense of the system and their role within it. Originality/value In addition to accommodating a wider range of tag functions, this research implies consideration of metadata ecosystems, where different kinds of tags do different things and work together to create a multifaceted artifact.

Source

Journal of documentation. 74(2018) no.3, S.490-508

0.003743066 = product of:
  0.0112291975 = sum of:
    0.0112291975 = product of:
      0.022458395 = sum of:
        0.022458395 = weight(_text_:of in 1575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022458395 = score(doc=1575,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 1575, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1575)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to enhance cultural heritage data curation. A core research question of this study is how to share cultural heritage data by using ontologies. A case study was conducted using open government data mapped with the CIDOC-CRM (Conceptual Reference Model). Twelve library-related files in unstructured data format were collected from an open government website, Seoul Metropolitan Government of Korea (http://data.seoul.go.kr). By using the ontologies of the CIDOC CRM 5.1.2, we conducted a mapping process as a way of enhancing cultural heritage information to share information as a data component. We graphed each file then mapped each file in tables. Implications of this study are both the enhanced discoverability of unstructured data and the reusability of mapped information. Issues emerging from this study involve verification of detail for complete compatibility without further input from domain experts.

0.0036536194 = product of:
  0.010960858 = sum of:
    0.010960858 = product of:
      0.021921717 = sum of:
        0.021921717 = weight(_text_:of in 2806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021921717 = score(doc=2806,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 2806, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2806)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Digital repositories require good metadata, created according to community-based principles that include provisions for interoperability. When metadata is of high quality, digital objects become sharable and metadata can be harvested and reused outside of the local system. A sample of U.S.-based repository administrators from the OpenDOAR initiative were surveyed to understand aspects of the quality and creation of their metadata, and how their metadata could improve. Most respondents (65%) thought their metadata was of average quality; none thought their metadata was high quality or poor quality. The discussion argues that increased strategic staffing will alleviate many perceived issues with metadata quality.

0.0035509837 = product of:
  0.010652951 = sum of:
    0.010652951 = product of:
      0.021305902 = sum of:
        0.021305902 = weight(_text_:of in 3523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021305902 = score(doc=3523,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 3523, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3523)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

On December 12, 2016, Carl Stahmer and MacKenzie Smith presented at the CNI Members Fall Meeting about the BIBFLOW project, self-described on Twitter as "a two-year project of the UC Davis University Library and Zepheira investigating the future of library technical services." In her opening remarks, Ms. Smith, University Librarian at UC Davis, stated that one of the goals of the project was to devise a roadmap "to get from where we are today, which is kind of the 1970s with a little lipstick on it, to 2020, which is where we're going to be very soon." The notion that where libraries are today is somehow behind the times is one of the commonly heard rationales behind a move to linked data. Stated more precisely: - Libraries devote considerable time and resources to producing high-quality bibliographic metadata - This metadata is stored in unconnected silos - This metadata is in a format (MARC) that is incompatible with technologies of the emerging Semantic Web - The visibility of library metadata is diminished as a result of the two points above Are these assertions true? If yes, is linked data the solution?

0.0035509837 = product of:
  0.010652951 = sum of:
    0.010652951 = product of:
      0.021305902 = sum of:
        0.021305902 = weight(_text_:of in 4013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021305902 = score(doc=4013,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 4013, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The information sciences have traditionally been at the center of metadata-focused research. The US National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence documents revealed by Edward Snowden in June of 2013 brought the term "metadata" into the public consciousness. Surprisingly little discussion in the information sciences has since occurred on the nature and importance of metadata within networked communication systems. The collection of digital metadata impacts the ways that people experience social and technical communication. Without such metadata, networked communication cannot exist. The NSA leaks, and numerous recent hacks of corporate and government communications, point to metadata as objects of new scholarly inquiry. If we are to engage in meaningful discussions about our digital traces, or make informed decisions about new policies and technologies, it is essential to develop theoretical and empirical frameworks that account for digital metadata. This opinion paper presents 5 key sociotechnical characteristics of metadata within digital networks that would benefit from stronger engagement by the information sciences.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.177-180

0.0035289964 = product of:
  0.010586989 = sum of:
    0.010586989 = product of:
      0.021173978 = sum of:
        0.021173978 = weight(_text_:of in 1906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021173978 = score(doc=1906,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 1906, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The applicability of Dublin Core Application Profiles (DCAP) and the Singapore Framework for DCAPs to Resource Description and Access (RDA) were assessed. First, a draft RDA application profile is outlined, which reveals their applicability to RDA as a whole. Then, the current situation and issues involved in defining and specifying the RDA vocabularies, description structures, and syntaxes, all of which form the RDA application profile, are reviewed, for four levels of the RDA description structure; that is, the levels of aggregates and components of statements.

0.0035289964 = product of:
  0.010586989 = sum of:
    0.010586989 = product of:
      0.021173978 = sum of:
        0.021173978 = weight(_text_:of in 5146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021173978 = score(doc=5146,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 5146, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5146)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Increasingly, metadata standards have been recognized as constructed rather than neutral. In this article, we argue for the importance of a documentation approach to metadata standards creation as a codification of this growing recognition. By making design decisions explicit, the documentation approach dispels presumptions of neutrality and, drawing on the "wicked problems" theoretical framework, acknowledges the constructed nature of standards as "clumsy solutions."

0.0034169364 = product of:
  0.010250809 = sum of:
    0.010250809 = product of:
      0.020501617 = sum of:
        0.020501617 = weight(_text_:of in 2086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020501617 = score(doc=2086,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 2086, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2086)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

An overview of the field of information organization that examines resource description as both a product and process of the contemporary digital environment. This timely book employs the unifying mechanism of the semantic web and the resource description framework to integrate the various traditions and practices of information and knowledge organization. Uniquely, it covers both the domain-specific traditions and practices and the practices of the 'metadata movement' through a single lens - that of resource description in the broadest, semantic web sense. This approach more readily accommodates coverage of the new Resource Description and Access (RDA) standard, which aims to move library cataloguing into the centre of the semantic web. The work surrounding RDA looks set to revolutionise the field of information organization, and this book will bring both the standard and its model and concepts into focus.

Content

Information resource attributes - metadata for information retrieval - metadata sources and quality - economics and management of metadata - knowledge organization systems - the semantic web - books and e-books, websites and audiovisual resources - business and government documents - learning resources - the field of information/knowledge organization.

0.0034169364 = product of:
  0.010250809 = sum of:
    0.010250809 = product of:
      0.020501617 = sum of:
        0.020501617 = weight(_text_:of in 2195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020501617 = score(doc=2195,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 2195, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2195)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Riley's survey (2010) of metadata standards for cultural heritage collections represents a rare attempt to classify such standards, in this case according to their domain, community, function and purpose. This paper reports on a survey of metadata standards with particular functions, i.e. those of schemas and vocabularies, but that have been published online for any domain or community (and not just those of the cultural heritage sector). In total, 53 schemas and 328 vocabularies were identified as within scope, and were classified according to their subject coverage and the type of warrant used in their reported development, i.e. resource, expert or user warrant, or a combination of these types. There was found to be a general correlation between the coverage of the schemas and vocabularies. Areas of underrepresentation would appear to be the humanities and the fine arts, and, in the case of schemas, also law, engineering, manufacturing and sport. Schemas would appear to be constructed more by consulting experts and considering endusers' search behaviour; vocabularies, on the other hand, are developed more by considering the information resources themselves, or by combining a range of methods.

0.003382594 = product of:
  0.010147782 = sum of:
    0.010147782 = product of:
      0.020295564 = sum of:
        0.020295564 = weight(_text_:of in 5158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020295564 = score(doc=5158,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 5158, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5158)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The constantly changing metadata landscape means that libraries need to re-think their approach to standards and subject analysis, to enable the discovery of vast areas of both print and digital content. This article presents a case study from the British Library that assesses the feasibility of adopting FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) to selectively extend the scope of subject indexing of current and legacy content, or implement FAST as a replacement for all LCSH in current cataloging workflows.