Search (89 results, page 5 of 5)

0.0057428335 = product of:
  0.022971334 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 4096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=4096,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 4096, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4096)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0057428335 = product of:
  0.022971334 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=5130,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 5130, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5130)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This IFLA Rare Books and Special Collections Section presentation and discussion grew out of a panel discussion of the same title held at CIDOC's annual meeting in September, 2015. Ideas drawn from the panel discussion were presented to IFLA participants for further commentary. The author prefaces the open discussion with brief contextual information about how the library, archives, and museums sectors are addressing the challenge of metadata integration. Megan Phillips, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, leads an open discussion, an edited transcript of which forms the main part of this article.

0.005093075 = product of:
  0.0203723 = sum of:
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 3737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=3737,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3737, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3737)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 1765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=1765,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 1765, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1765)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper seeks to adopt FRBRoo as an ontological approach to integrate heterogeneous metadata, and transform human-understandable format into machine-understandable format for semantic query. Design/methodology/approach - Two cases of use with museum artefacts and literary works were exploited to illustrate how FRBRoo can be used to re-contextualize the semantics of elements and the semantic relationships embedded in those elements. The shared ontology was then RDFized and examples were explored to examine the feasibility of the proposed approach. Findings - FRBRoo can play a role as inter lingua aligning museum and library metadata to achieve heterogeneous metadata integration and semantic query without changing either of the original approaches to fit the other. Research limitations/implications - Exploration of more diverse use cases is required to further align the different approaches of museums and libraries using FRBRoo and make revisions. Practical implications - Solid evidence is provided for the use of FRBRoo in heterogeneous metadata integration and semantic query. Originality/value - This is the first study to elaborate how FRBRoo can play a role as a shared ontology to integrate the heterogeneous metadata generated by museums and libraries. This paper also shows how the proposed approach is distinct from the Dublin Core format crosswalk in re-contextualizing semantic meanings and their relationships, and further provides four new sub-types for mapping description language.

0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 3346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=3346,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 3346, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3346)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=3707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 3707, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3707)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=101,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Social tagging, hashtags, and geotags are used across a variety of platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, WordPress, Instagram) in different countries and cultures. This book, representing researchers and practitioners across different information professions, explores how social tags can link content across a variety of environments. Most studies of social tagging have tended to focus on applications like library catalogs, blogs, and social bookmarking sites. This book, in setting out a theoretical background and the use of a series of case studies, explores the role of hashtags as a form of linked data?without the complex implementation of RDF and other Semantic Web technologies.

0.0042442293 = product of:
  0.016976917 = sum of:
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3524, 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=3524)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

16.11.2017 13:30:22

0.0033953832 = product of:
  0.013581533 = sum of:
    0.013581533 = product of:
      0.027163066 = sum of:
        0.027163066 = weight(_text_:22 in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027163066 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 367, 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=367)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The proliferation of discipline-specific metadata schemes contributes to artificial barriers that can impede interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. The authors considered this problem by examining the domains, objectives, and architectures of nine metadata schemes used to document scientific data in the physical, life, and social sciences. They used a mixed-methods content analysis and Greenberg's () metadata objectives, principles, domains, and architectural layout (MODAL) framework, and derived 22 metadata-related goals from textual content describing each metadata scheme. Relationships are identified between the domains (e.g., scientific discipline and type of data) and the categories of scheme objectives. For each strong correlation (>0.6), a Fisher's exact test for nonparametric data was used to determine significance (p < .05). Significant relationships were found between the domains and objectives of the schemes. Schemes describing observational data are more likely to have "scheme harmonization" (compatibility and interoperability with related schemes) as an objective; schemes with the objective "abstraction" (a conceptual model exists separate from the technical implementation) also have the objective "sufficiency" (the scheme defines a minimal amount of information to meet the needs of the community); and schemes with the objective "data publication" do not have the objective "element refinement." The analysis indicates that many metadata-driven goals expressed by communities are independent of scientific discipline or the type of data, although they are constrained by historical community practices and workflows as well as the technological environment at the time of scheme creation. The analysis reveals 11 fundamental metadata goals for metadata documenting scientific data in support of sharing research data across disciplines and domains. The authors report these results and highlight the need for more metadata-related research, particularly in the context of recent funding agency policy changes.