Search (385 results, page 19 of 20)

1.465579E-4 = product of:
  0.004250179 = sum of:
    0.004250179 = product of:
      0.008500358 = sum of:
        0.008500358 = weight(_text_:1 in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008500358 = score(doc=96,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05219918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02124939 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 96, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=96)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)

Abstract

E-sciences are data-intensive sciences that make a large use of the Web to share, collect, and process data. In this context, primary scientific data is becoming a new challenging issue as data must be extensively described (1) to account for empiric conditions and results that allow interpretation and/or analyses and (2) to be understandable by computers used for data storage and information retrieval. With this respect, metadata is a focal point whatever it is considered from the point of view of the user to visualize and exploit data as well as this of the search tools to find and retrieve information. Numerous disciplines are concerned with the issues of describing complex observations and addressing pertinent knowledge. In this paper, similarities and differences in data description and exploration strategies among disciplines in e-sciences are examined.

1.465579E-4 = product of:
  0.004250179 = sum of:
    0.004250179 = product of:
      0.008500358 = sum of:
        0.008500358 = weight(_text_:1 in 1972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008500358 = score(doc=1972,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05219918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02124939 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 1972, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1972)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 52(2014) no.1, S.77-89

1.465579E-4 = product of:
  0.004250179 = sum of:
    0.004250179 = product of:
      0.008500358 = sum of:
        0.008500358 = weight(_text_:1 in 4013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008500358 = score(doc=4013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05219918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02124939 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 4013, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)

Source

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

1.465579E-4 = product of:
  0.004250179 = sum of:
    0.004250179 = product of:
      0.008500358 = sum of:
        0.008500358 = weight(_text_:1 in 4096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008500358 = score(doc=4096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05219918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02124939 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 4096, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4096)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)

Isbn

978-1-85604-824-8

1.465579E-4 = product of:
  0.004250179 = sum of:
    0.004250179 = product of:
      0.008500358 = sum of:
        0.008500358 = weight(_text_:1 in 5574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008500358 = score(doc=5574,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05219918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02124939 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 5574, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5574)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)

Source

Library trends. 61(2012) no.1, S.248-258

1.465579E-4 = product of:
  0.004250179 = sum of:
    0.004250179 = product of:
      0.008500358 = sum of:
        0.008500358 = weight(_text_:1 in 1152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008500358 = score(doc=1152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05219918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02124939 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 1152, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 61(2023) no.1, p.47-66

1.2213158E-4 = product of:
  0.0035418156 = sum of:
    0.0035418156 = product of:
      0.007083631 = sum of:
        0.007083631 = weight(_text_:1 in 5071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007083631 = score(doc=5071,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05219918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02124939 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 5071, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5071)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)

Abstract

The Internet is a giant semiotic system. It is a massive collection of Peirce's three kinds of signs: icons, which show the form of something; indices, which point to something; and symbols, which represent something according to some convention. But current proposals for ontologies and metadata have overlooked some of the most important features of signs. A sign has three aspects: it is (1) an entity that represents (2) another entity to (3) an agent. By looking only at the signs themselves, some metadata proposals have lost sight of the entities they represent and the agents - human, animal, or robot - which interpret them. With its three branches of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, semiotics provides guidelines for organizing and using signs to represent something to someone for some purpose. Besides representation, semiotics also supports methods for translating patterns of signs intended for one purpose to other patterns intended for different but related purposes. This article shows how the fundamental semiotic primitives are represented in semantically equivalent notations for logic, including controlled natural languages and various computer languages

1.2213158E-4 = product of:
  0.0035418156 = sum of:
    0.0035418156 = product of:
      0.007083631 = sum of:
        0.007083631 = weight(_text_:1 in 5598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007083631 = score(doc=5598,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05219918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02124939 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 5598, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5598)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)

Date

1. 8.2006 11:48:59

1.2213158E-4 = product of:
  0.0035418156 = sum of:
    0.0035418156 = product of:
      0.007083631 = sum of:
        0.007083631 = weight(_text_:1 in 172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007083631 = score(doc=172,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05219918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02124939 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 172, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=172)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)

Source

Knowledge organization. 33(2006) no.1, S.20-34

1.2213158E-4 = product of:
  0.0035418156 = sum of:
    0.0035418156 = product of:
      0.007083631 = sum of:
        0.007083631 = weight(_text_:1 in 662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007083631 = score(doc=662,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05219918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02124939 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 662, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=662)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)

Source

Knowledge organization. 34(2007) no.1, S.41-57

1.2213158E-4 = product of:
  0.0035418156 = sum of:
    0.0035418156 = product of:
      0.007083631 = sum of:
        0.007083631 = weight(_text_:1 in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007083631 = score(doc=1249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05219918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02124939 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)

Source

D-Lib magazine. 5(1999) no.1, xx S

1.2213158E-4 = product of:
  0.0035418156 = sum of:
    0.0035418156 = product of:
      0.007083631 = sum of:
        0.007083631 = weight(_text_:1 in 3086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007083631 = score(doc=3086,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05219918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02124939 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 3086, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3086)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)

Isbn

1-59829-771-6

1.2213158E-4 = product of:
  0.0035418156 = sum of:
    0.0035418156 = product of:
      0.007083631 = sum of:
        0.007083631 = weight(_text_:1 in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007083631 = score(doc=865,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05219918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02124939 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)

Source

Library hi tech. 28(2010) no.1, S.81-93

1.2213158E-4 = product of:
  0.0035418156 = sum of:
    0.0035418156 = product of:
      0.007083631 = sum of:
        0.007083631 = weight(_text_:1 in 1253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007083631 = score(doc=1253,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05219918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02124939 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 1253, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1253)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)

Date

1. 5.2014 17:32:09

1.2213158E-4 = product of:
  0.0035418156 = sum of:
    0.0035418156 = product of:
      0.007083631 = sum of:
        0.007083631 = weight(_text_:1 in 3897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007083631 = score(doc=3897,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05219918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02124939 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 3897, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3897)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)

Abstract

The Early American Cookbooks digital project is a case study in analyzing collections as data using HathiTrust and the HathiTrust Research Center (HTRC) Portal. The purposes of the project are to create a freely available, searchable collection of full-text early American cookbooks within the HathiTrust Digital Library, to offer an overview of the scope and contents of the collection, and to analyze trends and patterns in the metadata and the full text of the collection. The digital project has two basic components: a collection of 1450 full-text cookbooks published in the United States between 1800 and 1920 and a website to present a guide to the collection and the results of the analysis. This article will focus on the workflow for analyzing the metadata and the full-text of the collection. The workflow will cover: 1) creating a searchable public collection of full-text titles within the HathiTrust Digital Library and uploading it to the HTRC Portal, 2) analyzing and visualizing legacy MARC data for the collection using MarcEdit, OpenRefine and Tableau, and 3) using the text analysis tools in the HTRC Portal to look for trends and patterns in the full text of the collection.

1.2213158E-4 = product of:
  0.0035418156 = sum of:
    0.0035418156 = product of:
      0.007083631 = sum of:
        0.007083631 = weight(_text_:1 in 5398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007083631 = score(doc=5398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05219918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02124939 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 5398, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5398)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)

Date

1. 7.2019 18:49:14

9.770526E-5 = product of:
  0.0028334525 = sum of:
    0.0028334525 = product of:
      0.005666905 = sum of:
        0.005666905 = weight(_text_:1 in 2731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005666905 = score(doc=2731,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05219918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02124939 = queryNorm
            0.1085631 = fieldWeight in 2731, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2731)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)

Abstract

We propose an extension of a mediator architecture. This extension is oriented to ontology-driven data integration. In our architecture ontologies are not managed by an extemal component or service, but are integrated in the mediation layer. This approach implies rethinking the mediator design, but at the same time provides advantages from a database perspective. Some of these advantages include the application of optimization and evaluation techniques that use and combine information from all abstraction levels (physical schema, logical schema and semantic information defined by ontology). 1. Introduction Although the Web is probably the richest information repository in human history, users cannot specify what they want from it. Two major problems that arise in current search engines (Heflin, 2001) are: a) polysemy, when the same word is used with different meanings; b) synonymy, when two different words have the same meaning. Polysemy causes irrelevant information retrieval. On the other hand, synonymy produces lost of useful documents. The lack of a capability to understand the context of the words and the relationships among required terms, explains many of the lost and false results produced by search engines. The Semantic Web will bring structure to the meaningful content of Web pages, giving semantic relationships among terms and possibly avoiding the previous problems. Various proposals have appeared for meta-data representation and communication standards, and other services and tools that may eventually merge into the global Semantic Web (Berners-lee, 2001). Hopefully, in the next few years we will see the universal adoption of open standards for representation and sharing of meta-information. In this environment, software agents roaming from page to page can readily carry out sophisticated tasks for users (Berners-Lee, 2001). In this context, ontologies can be seen as metadata that represent semantic of data; providing a knowledge domain standard vocabulary, like DTDs and XML Schema do. If its pages were so structured, the Web could be seen as a heterogeneous collection of autonomous databases. This suggests that techniques developed in the Database area could be useful. Database research mainly deals with efficient storage and retrieval and with powerful query languages.

9.770526E-5 = product of:
  0.0028334525 = sum of:
    0.0028334525 = product of:
      0.005666905 = sum of:
        0.005666905 = weight(_text_:1 in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005666905 = score(doc=3197,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05219918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02124939 = queryNorm
            0.1085631 = fieldWeight in 3197, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3197)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)

Footnote

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

9.770526E-5 = product of:
  0.0028334525 = sum of:
    0.0028334525 = product of:
      0.005666905 = sum of:
        0.005666905 = weight(_text_:1 in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005666905 = score(doc=339,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.05219918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02124939 = queryNorm
            0.1085631 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST. 58(2007) no.6., S.909-910 (A.D. Petrou): "A division in metadata definitions for physical objects vs. those for digital resources offered in Chapter 1 is punctuated by the use of broader, more inclusive metadata definitions, such as data about data as well as with the inclusion of more specific metadata definitions intended for networked resources. Intertwined with the book's subject matter, which is to "distinguish traditional cataloguing from metadata activity" (5), the authors' chosen metadata definition is also detailed on page 5 as follows: Thus while granting the validity of the inclusive definition, we concentrate primarily on metadata as it is most commonly thought of both inside and outside of the library community, as "structured information used to find, access, use and manage information resources primarily in a digital environment." (International Encyclopedia of Information and Library Science, 2003) Metadata principles discussed by the authors include modularity, extensibility, refinement and multilingualism. The latter set is followed by seven misconceptions about metadata. Two types of metadata discussed are automatically generated indexes and manually created records. In terms of categories of metadata, the authors present three sets of them as follows: descriptive, structural, and administrative metadata. Chapter 2 focuses on metadata for communities of practice, and is a prelude to content in Chapter 3 where metadata applications, use, and development are presented from the perspective of libraries. Chapter 2 discusses the emergence and impact of metadata on organization and access of online resources from the perspective of communities for which such standards exist and for the need for mapping one standard to another. Discussion focuses on metalanguages, such as Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) and eXtensible Markup Language (XML), "capable of embedding descriptive elements within the document markup itself' (25). This discussion falls under syntactic interoperability. For semantic interoperability, HTML and other mark-up languages, such as Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) and Computer Interchange of Museum Information (CIMI), are covered. For structural interoperability, Dublin Core's 15 metadata elements are grouped into three areas: content (title, subject, description, type, source, relation, and coverage), intellectual property (creator, publisher, contributor and rights), and instantiation (date, format, identifier, and language) for discussion.
Other selected specialized metadata element sets or schemas, such as Government Information Locator Service (GILS), are presented. Attention is brought to the different sets of elements and the need for linking up these elements across metadata schemes from a semantic point of view. It is no surprise, then, that after the presentation of additional specialized sets of metadata from the educational community and the arts sector, attention is turned to the discussion of Crosswalks between metadata element sets or the mapping of one metadata standard to another. Finally, the five appendices detailing elements found in Dublin Core, GILS, ARIADNE versions 3 and 3. 1, and Categories for the Description of Works of Art are an excellent addition to this chapter's focus on metadata and communities of practice. Chapters 3-6 provide an up-to-date account of the use of metadata standards in Libraries from the point of view of a community of practice. Some of the content standards included in these four chapters are AACR2, Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), and Library of Congress Subject Classification. In addition, uses of MARC along with planned implementations of the archival community's encoding scheme, EAD, are covered in detail. In a way, content in these chapters can be considered as a refresher course on the history, current state, importance, and usefulness of the above-mentioned standards in Libraries. Application of the standards is offered for various types of materials, such as monographic materials, continuing resources, and integrating library metadata into local catalogs and databases. A review of current digital library projects takes place in Chapter 7. While details about these projects tend to become out of date fast, the sections on issues and problems encountered in digital projects and successes and failures deserve any reader's close inspection. A suggested model is important enough to merit a specific mention below, in a short list format, as it encapsulates lessons learned from issues, problems, successes, and failures in digital projects. Before detailing the model, however, the various projects included in Chapter 7 should be mentioned. The projects are: Colorado Digitization Project, Cooperative Online Resource Catalog (an Office of Research project by OCLC, Inc.), California Digital Library, JSTOR, LC's National Digital Library Program and VARIATIONS.

Isbn

1-59158-145-1

9.770526E-5 = product of:
  0.0028334525 = sum of:
    0.0028334525 = product of:
      0.005666905 = sum of:
        0.005666905 = weight(_text_:1 in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005666905 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05219918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02124939 = queryNorm
            0.1085631 = fieldWeight in 1177, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1177)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)

Abstract

This is the second part of an analysis of the methods that have been used to achieve or improve interoperability among metadata schemas and their applications in order to facilitate the conversion and exchange of metadata and to enable cross-domain metadata harvesting and federated searches. From a methodological point of view, implementing interoperability may be considered at different levels of operation: schema level (discussed in Part I of the article), record level (discussed in Part II of the article), and repository level (also discussed in Part II). The results of efforts to improve interoperability may be observed from different perspectives as well, including element-based and value-based approaches. As discussed in Part I of this study, the results of efforts to improve interoperability can be observed at different levels: 1. Schema level - Efforts are focused on the elements of the schemas, being independent of any applications. The results usually appear as derived element sets or encoded schemas, crosswalks, application profiles, and element registries. 2. Record level - Efforts are intended to integrate the metadata records through the mapping of the elements according to the semantic meanings of these elements. Common results include converted records and new records resulting from combining values of existing records. 3. Repository level - With harvested or integrated records from varying sources, efforts at this level focus on mapping value strings associated with particular elements (e.g., terms associated with subject or format elements). The results enable cross-collection searching. In the following sections, we will continue to analyze interoperability efforts and methodologies, focusing on the record level and the repository level. It should be noted that the models to be discussed in this article are not always mutually exclusive. Sometimes, within a particular project, more than one method may be used.