Search (143 results, page 1 of 8)

0.0467237 = product of:
  0.0934474 = sum of:
    0.0934474 = sum of:
      0.050186485 = weight(_text_:i in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050186485 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17204544 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = queryNorm
          0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
      0.043260913 = weight(_text_:22 in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043260913 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15973409 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A variety of information communities have developed metadata schemes to meet the needs of their own users. The ability of libraries to incorporate and use multiple metadata schemes in current library systems will depend on the compatibility of imported data with existing catalog data. Authority control will play an important role in metadata interoperability. In this article, I discuss factors for successful authority control in current library catalogs, which include operation in a well-defined and bounded universe, application of principles and standard practices to access point creation, reference to authoritative lists, and bibliographic record creation by highly trained individuals. Metadata characteristics and environmental models are examined and the likelihood of successful authority control is explored for a variety of metadata environments.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0467237 = product of:
  0.0934474 = sum of:
    0.0934474 = sum of:
      0.050186485 = weight(_text_:i in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050186485 = score(doc=637,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17204544 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = queryNorm
          0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 637, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=637)
      0.043260913 = weight(_text_:22 in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043260913 = score(doc=637,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15973409 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 637, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=637)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In an interview, Diane I. Hillmann, an expert in metadata for digital libraries and currently co-principal investigator for the National Science Digital Library Registry based at Cornell University, discusses her education and career, and provides overviews and insights on metadata initiatives, including standards and models such as the widely adopted Dublin Core schema. She shares her professional interests from the early part of her career with communications, cataloging, and database production services; highlights key issues; and provides ideas and resources for managing changes in metadata standards and digital projects.

Date

2.12.2007 19:35:22

0.0467237 = product of:
  0.0934474 = sum of:
    0.0934474 = sum of:
      0.050186485 = weight(_text_:i in 5630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050186485 = score(doc=5630,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17204544 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = queryNorm
          0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 5630, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5630)
      0.043260913 = weight(_text_:22 in 5630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043260913 = score(doc=5630,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15973409 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5630, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5630)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: https://www.b-i-t-online.de/heft/2017-01-index.php.

Source

B.I.T.online. 20(2017) H.1, S.22-25

0.040048882 = product of:
  0.080097765 = sum of:
    0.080097765 = sum of:
      0.04301699 = weight(_text_:i in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04301699 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17204544 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = queryNorm
          0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
      0.03708078 = weight(_text_:22 in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03708078 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15973409 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2623, 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=2623)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Contemporary retrieval systems, which search across collections, usually ignore collection-level metadata. Alternative approaches, exploiting collection-level information, will require an understanding of the various kinds of relationships that can obtain between collection-level and item-level metadata. This paper outlines the problem and describes a project that is developing a logic-based framework for classifying collection/item metadata relationships. This framework will support (i) metadata specification developers defining metadata elements, (ii) metadata creators describing objects, and (iii) system designers implementing systems that take advantage of collection-level metadata. We present three examples of collection/item metadata relationship categories, attribute/value-propagation, value-propagation, and value-constraint and show that even in these simple cases a precise formulation requires modal notions in addition to first-order logic. These formulations are related to recent work in information retrieval and ontology evaluation.

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

0.040048882 = product of:
  0.080097765 = sum of:
    0.080097765 = sum of:
      0.04301699 = weight(_text_:i in 2643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04301699 = score(doc=2643,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17204544 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = queryNorm
          0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 2643, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2643)
      0.03708078 = weight(_text_:22 in 2643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03708078 = score(doc=2643,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15973409 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2643, 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=2643)
  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

0.0397568 = sum of:
  0.014663559 = product of:
    0.073317796 = sum of:
      0.073317796 = weight(_text_:authors in 982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.073317796 = score(doc=982,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20794787 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 982, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=982)
    0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.025093243 = product of:
    0.050186485 = sum of:
      0.050186485 = weight(_text_:i in 982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050186485 = score(doc=982,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17204544 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = queryNorm
          0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 982, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=982)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Metadata is designed to improve information organization and information retrieval effectiveness and efficiency on the Internet. The way web publishers respond to metadata and the way they use it when publishing their web pages, however, is still a mystery. The authors of this paper aim to solve this mystery by defining different professional publisher groups, examining the behaviors of these user groups, and identifying the characteristics of their metadata use. This study will enhance the current understanding of metadata application behavior and provide evidence useful to researchers, web publishers, and search engine designers.

0.03337407 = product of:
  0.06674814 = sum of:
    0.06674814 = sum of:
      0.03584749 = weight(_text_:i in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03584749 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17204544 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = queryNorm
          0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
      0.030900652 = weight(_text_:22 in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030900652 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15973409 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.031109156 = sum of:
  0.012568766 = product of:
    0.06284383 = sum of:
      0.06284383 = weight(_text_:authors in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06284383 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20794787 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
    0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.01854039 = product of:
    0.03708078 = sum of:
      0.03708078 = weight(_text_:22 in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03708078 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15973409 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4748, 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=4748)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Metadata and information technology staff in libraries that are building digital collections typically extract and manipulate MARC metadata sets to provide access to digital content via non-MARC schemes. Metadata processing in these libraries involves defining the relationships between metadata schemes, moving metadata between schemes, and coordinating the intellectual activity and physical resources required to create and manipulate metadata. Actively managing the non-MARC metadata resources used to build digital collections is something most of these libraries have only begun to do. This article proposes strategies for managing MARC metadata repurposing efforts as the first step in a coordinated approach to library metadata management. Guided by lessons learned from Cornell University library mapping and transformation activities, the authors apply the literature of data resource management to library metadata management and propose a model for managing MARC metadata repurposing processes through the implementation of a metadata management design.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.144-152

0.026699256 = product of:
  0.053398512 = sum of:
    0.053398512 = sum of:
      0.02867799 = weight(_text_:i in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02867799 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17204544 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = queryNorm
          0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
      0.024720522 = weight(_text_:22 in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024720522 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15973409 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1236, 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=1236)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Dublin Core is often presented as a modern form of catalog card -- a set of elements (and now qualifiers) that describe resources in a complete package. Sometimes it is proposed as an exchange format for sharing records among multiple collections. The founding principle that "every element is optional and repeatable" reinforces the notion that a Dublin Core description is to be taken as a whole. This paper, in contrast, is based on a much different premise: Dublin Core is a language. More precisely, it is a small language for making a particular class of statements about resources. Like natural languages, it has a vocabulary of word-like terms, the two classes of which -- elements and qualifiers -- function within statements like nouns and adjectives; and it has a syntax for arranging elements and qualifiers into statements according to a simple pattern. Whenever tourists order a meal or ask directions in an unfamiliar language, considerate native speakers will spontaneously limit themselves to basic words and simple sentence patterns along the lines of "I am so-and-so" or "This is such-and-such". Linguists call this pidginization. In such situations, a small phrase book or translated menu can be most helpful. By analogy, today's Web has been called an Internet Commons where users and information providers from a wide range of scientific, commercial, and social domains present their information in a variety of incompatible data models and description languages. In this context, Dublin Core presents itself as a metadata pidgin for digital tourists who must find their way in this linguistically diverse landscape. Its vocabulary is small enough to learn quickly, and its basic pattern is easily grasped. It is well-suited to serve as an auxiliary language for digital libraries. This grammar starts by defining terms. It then follows a 200-year-old tradition of English grammar teaching by focusing on the structure of single statements. It concludes by looking at the growing dictionary of Dublin Core vocabulary terms -- its registry, and at how statements can be used to build the metadata equivalent of paragraphs and compositions -- the application profile.

Date

26.12.2011 14:01:22

0.026220074 = product of:
  0.052440148 = sum of:
    0.052440148 = product of:
      0.104880296 = sum of:
        0.104880296 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.104880296 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15973409 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 5743, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5743)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 3.2002 19:45:22

Source

Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.2, S.198-219

0.025093243 = product of:
  0.050186485 = sum of:
    0.050186485 = product of:
      0.10037297 = sum of:
        0.10037297 = weight(_text_:i in 4970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10037297 = score(doc=4970,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204544 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.58340967 = fieldWeight in 4970, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4970)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.024720522 = product of:
  0.049441043 = sum of:
    0.049441043 = product of:
      0.09888209 = sum of:
        0.09888209 = weight(_text_:22 in 4899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09888209 = score(doc=4899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15973409 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4899, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4899)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

16. 7.2000 20:58:22

0.024720522 = product of:
  0.049441043 = sum of:
    0.049441043 = product of:
      0.09888209 = sum of:
        0.09888209 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09888209 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15973409 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

0.024210207 = sum of:
  0.011849946 = product of:
    0.05924973 = sum of:
      0.05924973 = weight(_text_:authors in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05924973 = score(doc=367,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20794787 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = queryNorm
          0.28492588 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
    0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.012360261 = product of:
    0.024720522 = sum of:
      0.024720522 = weight(_text_:22 in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024720522 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15973409 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = 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)

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.

0.022928637 = sum of:
  0.007406216 = product of:
    0.03703108 = sum of:
      0.03703108 = weight(_text_:authors in 133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03703108 = score(doc=133,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20794787 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = queryNorm
          0.17807868 = fieldWeight in 133, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=133)
    0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.0155224195 = product of:
    0.031044839 = sum of:
      0.031044839 = weight(_text_:i in 133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031044839 = score(doc=133,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.17204544 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = queryNorm
          0.18044558 = fieldWeight in 133, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=133)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

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

0.022718173 = sum of:
  0.008379176 = product of:
    0.04189588 = sum of:
      0.04189588 = weight(_text_:authors in 5046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04189588 = score(doc=5046,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20794787 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = queryNorm
          0.20147301 = fieldWeight in 5046, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5046)
    0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.014338995 = product of:
    0.02867799 = sum of:
      0.02867799 = weight(_text_:i in 5046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02867799 = score(doc=5046,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17204544 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045614466 = queryNorm
          0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 5046, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5046)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Human interpretation of images during image annotation is complicated, but most existing interactive image annotation systems are generally operated based on social tagging, while ignoring that tags are insufficient to convey image semantics. Hence, it is critical to study the nature of image annotation behaviors and process. This study investigated annotation tactics, transitions, strategies and their efficiency during the image annotation process. A total of 90 participants were recruited to annotate nine pictures in three emotional dimensions with three interactive annotation methods. Data collected from annotation logs and verbal protocols were analyzed by applying both qualitative and quantitative methods. The findings of this study show that the cognitive process of human interpretation of images is rather complex, which reveals a probable bias in research involving image relevance feedback. Participants preferred applying scroll bar (Scr) and image comparison (Cim) tactics comparing with rating tactic (Val), and they did fewer fine tuning activities, which reflects the influence of perceptual level and users' cognitive load during image annotation. Annotation tactic transition analysis showed that Cim was more likely to be adopted at the beginning of each phase, and the most remarkable transition was from Cim to Scr. By applying sequence analysis, the authors found 10 most commonly used sequences representing four types of annotation strategies, including Single tactic strategy, Tactic combination strategy, Fix mode strategy and Shift mode strategy. Furthermore, two patterns, "quarter decreasing" and "transition cost," were identified based on time data, and both multiple tactics (e.g., the combination of Cim and Scr) and fine tuning activities were recognized as efficient tactic applications. Annotation patterns found in this study suggest more research needs to be done considering the need for multi-interactive methods and their influence. The findings of this study generated detailed and useful guidance for the interactive design in image annotation systems, including recommending efficient tactic applications in different phases, highlighting the most frequently applied tactics and transitions, and avoiding unnecessary transitions.

0.021630457 = product of:
  0.043260913 = sum of:
    0.043260913 = product of:
      0.08652183 = sum of:
        0.08652183 = weight(_text_:22 in 4407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08652183 = score(doc=4407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15973409 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4407, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

28. 3.2002 9:22:34

0.021630457 = product of:
  0.043260913 = sum of:
    0.043260913 = product of:
      0.08652183 = sum of:
        0.08652183 = weight(_text_:22 in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08652183 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15973409 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7196, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7196)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

0.021630457 = product of:
  0.043260913 = sum of:
    0.043260913 = product of:
      0.08652183 = sum of:
        0.08652183 = weight(_text_:22 in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08652183 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15973409 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2841, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2841)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2

0.021508494 = product of:
  0.04301699 = sum of:
    0.04301699 = product of:
      0.08603398 = sum of:
        0.08603398 = weight(_text_:i in 5418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08603398 = score(doc=5418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204544 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.50006545 = fieldWeight in 5418, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5418)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)