Search (125 results, page 1 of 7)

0.10318789 = sum of:
  0.07065662 = product of:
    0.21196985 = sum of:
      0.21196985 = weight(_text_:objects in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.21196985 = score(doc=767,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.31904724 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060026903 = queryNorm
          0.6643839 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.03253127 = product of:
    0.06506254 = sum of:
      0.06506254 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06506254 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21020399 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060026903 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

RLG has used METS for a particular application, that is as a wrapper for structural metadata. When RLG cultural materials was launched, there was no single way to deal with "complex digital objects". METS provides a standard means of encoding metadata regarding the digital objects represented in RCM, and METS has now been fully integrated into the workflow for this service.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.65-68

0.08249304 = sum of:
  0.04996177 = product of:
    0.14988531 = sum of:
      0.14988531 = weight(_text_:objects in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14988531 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.31904724 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060026903 = queryNorm
          0.46979034 = fieldWeight in 2686, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2686)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.03253127 = product of:
    0.06506254 = sum of:
      0.06506254 = weight(_text_:22 in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06506254 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21020399 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060026903 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2686, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2686)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Metadata (structured information about an object or collection of objects) is increasingly important to libraries, archives, and museums. And although librarians are familiar with a number of issues that apply to creating and using metadata (e.g., authority control, controlled vocabularies, etc.), the world of metadata is nonetheless different than library cataloging, with its own set of challenges. Therefore, whether you are new to these concepts or quite experienced with classic cataloging, this short (20 pages) introductory paper on metadata can be helpful

Date

10. 9.2004 10:22:40

0.078185044 = sum of:
  0.03122611 = product of:
    0.093678325 = sum of:
      0.093678325 = weight(_text_:objects in 4264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.093678325 = score(doc=4264,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.31904724 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060026903 = queryNorm
          0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 4264, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4264)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.046958935 = product of:
    0.09391787 = sum of:
      0.09391787 = weight(_text_:encyclopedia in 4264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09391787 = score(doc=4264,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3194549 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.321862 = idf(docFreq=586, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060026903 = queryNorm
          0.29399413 = fieldWeight in 4264, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.321862 = idf(docFreq=586, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4264)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Metadata is of paramount importance for persons, organizations, and endeavors of every dimension that are increasingly turning to the World Wide Web (hereafter referred to as the Web) as a chief conduit for accessing and disseminating information. This is evidenced by the development and implementation of metadata schemas supporting projects ranging from restricted corporate intranets, data warehouses, and consumer-oriented electronic commerce enterprises to freely accessible digital libraries, educational initiatives, virtual museums, and other public Web sites. Today's metadata activities are unprecedented because they extend beyond the traditional library environment in an effort to deal with the Web's exponential growth. This article considers metadata in today's Web environment. The article defines metadata, examines the relationship between metadata and cataloging, provides definitions for key metadata vocabulary terms, and explores the topic of metadata generation. Metadata is an extensive and expanding subject that is prevalent in many environments. For practical reasons, this article has elected to concentrate an the information resource domain, which is defined by electronic textual documents, graphical images, archival materials, museum artifacts, and other objects found in both digital and physical information centers (e.g., libraries, museums, record centers, and archives). To show the extent and larger application of metadata, several examples are also drawn from the data warehouse, electronic commerce, open source, and medical communities.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information science. Vol.72, [=Suppl.35]

0.07739091 = sum of:
  0.052992463 = product of:
    0.15897739 = sum of:
      0.15897739 = weight(_text_:objects in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15897739 = score(doc=4752,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.31904724 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060026903 = queryNorm
          0.49828792 = fieldWeight in 4752, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4752)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.02439845 = product of:
    0.0487969 = sum of:
      0.0487969 = weight(_text_:22 in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0487969 = score(doc=4752,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21020399 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060026903 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4752, 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=4752)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As educational technology becomes pervasive, demand will grow for library content to be incorporated into courseware. Among the barriers impeding interoperability between libraries and educational tools is the difference in specifications commonly used for the exchange of digital objects and metadata. Among libraries, Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) is a new but increasingly popular standard; the IMS content-package (IMS-CP) plays a parallel role in educational technology. This article describes how METS-encoded library content can be converted into digital objects for IMS-compliant systems through an XSLT-based crosswalk. The conceptual models behind METS and IMS-CP are compared, the design and limitations of an XSLT-based translation are described, and the crosswalks are related to other techniques to enhance interoperability.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.69-81

0.07218141 = sum of:
  0.04371655 = product of:
    0.13114965 = sum of:
      0.13114965 = weight(_text_:objects in 3383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13114965 = score(doc=3383,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.31904724 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060026903 = queryNorm
          0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 3383, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3383)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.02846486 = product of:
    0.05692972 = sum of:
      0.05692972 = weight(_text_:22 in 3383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05692972 = score(doc=3383,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21020399 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060026903 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3383, 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=3383)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Highlights 2 major problems of the WWW metadata: it will take some time before a reasonable number of people start using metadata to provide a better Web classification, and that no one can guarantee that a majority of the Web objects will be ever properly classified via metadata. Addresses the problem of how to cope with intrinsic limits of Web metadata, proposes a method to solve these problems and show evidence of its effectiveness. Examines the important problem of what is the required critical mass in the WWW for metadata in order for it to be really useful

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06

0.07218141 = sum of:
  0.04371655 = product of:
    0.13114965 = sum of:
      0.13114965 = weight(_text_:objects in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13114965 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.31904724 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060026903 = queryNorm
          0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.02846486 = product of:
    0.05692972 = sum of:
      0.05692972 = weight(_text_:22 in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05692972 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21020399 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060026903 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2843, 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=2843)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The MIT libraries were called upon to recommend a metadata scheme for the resources contained in MIT's OpenCourseWare (OCW) project. The resources in OCW needed descriptive, structural, and technical metadata. The SCORM standard, which uses IEEE Learning Object Metadata for its descriptive standard, was selected for its focus on educational objects. However, it was clear that the Libraries would need to recommend how the standard would be applied and adapted to accommodate needs that were not addressed in the standard's specifications. The newly formed MIT Libraries Metadata Unit adapted established practices from AACR2 and MARC traditions when facing situations in which there were no precedents to follow.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.138-143

0.06186978 = sum of:
  0.03747133 = product of:
    0.11241399 = sum of:
      0.11241399 = weight(_text_:objects in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11241399 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.31904724 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060026903 = queryNorm
          0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.02439845 = product of:
    0.0487969 = sum of:
      0.0487969 = weight(_text_:22 in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0487969 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21020399 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060026903 = 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

0.045892816 = product of:
  0.09178563 = sum of:
    0.09178563 = product of:
      0.2753569 = sum of:
        0.2753569 = weight(_text_:objects in 2981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2753569 = score(doc=2981,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.31904724 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.060026903 = queryNorm
            0.86305994 = fieldWeight in 2981, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2981)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Metadata is a core issue for the creation of repositories. Different institutional repositories have chosen and use different metadata models, elements and values for describing the range of digital objects they store. Thus, this paper analyzes the current use of metadata describing those Learning Objects that some open higher educational institutions' repositories include in their collections. The goal of this work is to identify and analyze the different metadata models being used to describe educational features of those specific digital educational objects (such as audience, type of educational material, learning objectives, etc.). Also discussed is the concept and typology of Learning Objects (LO) through their use in University Repositories. We will also examine the usefulness of specifically describing those learning objects, setting them apart from other kind of documents included in the repository, mainly scholarly publications and research results of the Higher Education institution.

0.041894224 = product of:
  0.08378845 = sum of:
    0.08378845 = product of:
      0.25136533 = sum of:
        0.25136533 = weight(_text_:objects in 5727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25136533 = score(doc=5727,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.31904724 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.060026903 = queryNorm
            0.7878624 = fieldWeight in 5727, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5727)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) is a data communication standard for encoding descriptive, administrative, and structural metadata regarding objects within a digital library, expressed using the XML Schema Language of the World Wide Web Consortium. An initiative of the Digital Library Federation, METS is under development by an international editorial board and is maintained in the Network Development and MARC Standards Office of the Library of Congress. Designed in conformance with the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) Reference Model, a METS document encapsulates digital objects and metadata as Information Packages for transmitting and/or exchanging digital objects to and from digital repositories, disseminating digital objects via the Web, and archiving digital objects for long-term preservation and access. This paper presents an introduction to the METS standard and through illustrated examples, demonstrates how to build a METS document.

0.04124652 = sum of:
  0.024980886 = product of:
    0.074942656 = sum of:
      0.074942656 = weight(_text_:objects in 2664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.074942656 = score(doc=2664,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.31904724 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060026903 = queryNorm
          0.23489517 = fieldWeight in 2664, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2664)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.016265634 = product of:
    0.03253127 = sum of:
      0.03253127 = weight(_text_:22 in 2664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03253127 = score(doc=2664,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21020399 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060026903 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2664, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2664)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

DISC-UK DataShare (2007-2009), a project led by the University of Edinburgh and funded by JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee, UK), arises from an existing consortium of academic data support professionals working in the domain of social science datasets (Data Information Specialists Committee-UK). We are working together across four universities with colleagues engaged in managing open access repositories for e-prints. Our project supports 'early adopter' academics who wish to openly share datasets and presents a model for depositing 'orphaned datasets' that are not being deposited in subject-domain data archives/centres. Outputs from the project are intended to help to demystify data as complex objects in repositories, and assist other institutional repository managers in overcoming barriers to incorporating research data. By building on lessons learned from recent JISC-funded data repository projects such as SToRe and GRADE the project will help realize the vision of the Digital Repositories Roadmap, e.g. the milestone under Data, "Institutions need to invest in research data repositories" (Heery and Powell, 2006). Application of appropriate metadata is an important area of development for the project. Datasets are not different from other digital materials in that they need to be described, not just for discovery but also for preservation and re-use. The GRADE project found that for geo-spatial datasets, Dublin Core metadata (with geo-spatial enhancements such as a bounding box for the 'coverage' property) was sufficient for discovery within a DSpace repository, though more indepth metadata or documentation was required for re-use after downloading. The project partners are examining other metadata schemas such as the Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) versions 2 and 3, used primarily by social science data archives (Martinez, 2008). Crosswalks from the DDI to qualified Dublin Core are important for describing research datasets at the study level (as opposed to the variable level which is largely out of scope for this project). DataShare is benefiting from work of of the DRIADE project (application profile development for evolutionary biology) (Carrier, et al, 2007), eBank UK (developed an application profile for crystallography data) and GAP (Geospatial Application Profile, in progress) in defining interoperable Dublin Core qualified metadata elements and their application to datasets for each partner repository. The solution devised at Edinburgh for DSpace will be covered in the poster.

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

0.03747133 = product of:
  0.07494266 = sum of:
    0.07494266 = product of:
      0.22482798 = sum of:
        0.22482798 = weight(_text_:objects in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22482798 = score(doc=3589,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.31904724 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.060026903 = queryNorm
            0.7046855 = fieldWeight in 3589, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3589)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports results of a study of 4 WWW search engines: AltaVista; Lycos; Excite and WebCrawler to collect data on Web objects on polymer chemistry. 1.037 Web objects were examined for data in 4 categories: document information; use of meta fields; use of images and use of chemical names. Issues raised included: whether to provide metadata elements for parts of entities or whole entities only, the use of metasyntax, problems in representation of special types of objects, and whether links should be considered when encoding metadata. Use of metafields was not widespread in the sample and knowledge of metafields in HTML varied greatly among Web object creators. The study formed part of a metadata project funded by the OCLC Library and Information Science Research Grant Program

0.034911852 = product of:
  0.069823705 = sum of:
    0.069823705 = product of:
      0.2094711 = sum of:
        0.2094711 = weight(_text_:objects in 4468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2094711 = score(doc=4468,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.31904724 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.060026903 = queryNorm
            0.656552 = fieldWeight in 4468, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4468)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper examines the reasons why existing management practices designed to cope with paper-based data objects appear to be inadequate for managing digital data objects (DDOs). The research described suggests the need for a reassessment of the way we view long-term access to DDOs. There is a need for a shift in emphasis which embraces the fluid nature of such objects and addresses the multifaceted issues involved in achieving such access. It would appear from the findings of this research that a conceptual framework needs to be developed which addresses a range of elements. The research achieved this by examining the issues facing stakeholders involved in this field; examining the need for and structure of a new generic conceptual framework, the super-metadata framework; identifying and discussing the issues central to the development of such a framework; and justifying the feasibility through the creation of an interactive cost model and stakeholder evaluation. The wider conceptual justification for such a framework is discussed and this involves an examination of the "public good" argument for the long-term retention of DDOs and the importance of selection in the management process. The paper concludes by considering the benefits to practitioners and the role they might play in testing the feasibility of such a framework. The paper also suggests possible avenues researchers may wish to consider to develop further the management of this field. (Note: This paper is derived from the author's Loughborough University phD thesis, "Managing long-term access to digital data objects: a metadata approach", written while holding a research studentship funded by the Department of Information Science.)

0.034504622 = product of:
  0.069009244 = sum of:
    0.069009244 = product of:
      0.13801849 = sum of:
        0.13801849 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13801849 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21020399 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.060026903 = 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

0.03253127 = product of:
  0.06506254 = sum of:
    0.06506254 = product of:
      0.13012508 = sum of:
        0.13012508 = weight(_text_:22 in 4899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13012508 = score(doc=4899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21020399 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.060026903 = 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

0.03253127 = product of:
  0.06506254 = sum of:
    0.06506254 = product of:
      0.13012508 = sum of:
        0.13012508 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13012508 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21020399 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.060026903 = 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

0.032451127 = product of:
  0.06490225 = sum of:
    0.06490225 = product of:
      0.19470675 = sum of:
        0.19470675 = weight(_text_:objects in 4053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19470675 = score(doc=4053,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.31904724 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.060026903 = queryNorm
            0.6102756 = fieldWeight in 4053, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4053)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Within a digital library, collections may range from an ad hoc set of objects that serve a temporary purpose to established library collections intended to persist through time. The objects in these collections vary widely, from library and data center holdings to pointers to real-world objects, such as geographic places, and the various metadata schemes that describe them. The key to integrated use of such a variety of collections in a digital library is collection metadata that represents the inherent and contextual characteristics of a collection. The Alexandria Digital Library (ADL) Project has designed and implemented collection metadata for several purposes: in XML form, the collection metadatada 'registers' the collection with the user interface client; in HTML form, it is used for user documentation; eventually, it will be used to describe the collection to network search agents; and it is used for internal collection management, including mapping the object metadata attributes to the common search parameters of the system

0.031274017 = sum of:
  0.012490443 = product of:
    0.037471328 = sum of:
      0.037471328 = weight(_text_:objects in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037471328 = score(doc=339,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.31904724 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060026903 = queryNorm
          0.117447585 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.018783573 = product of:
    0.037567146 = sum of:
      0.037567146 = weight(_text_:encyclopedia in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037567146 = score(doc=339,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3194549 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.321862 = idf(docFreq=586, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060026903 = queryNorm
          0.11759765 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.321862 = idf(docFreq=586, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.03091227 = product of:
  0.06182454 = sum of:
    0.06182454 = product of:
      0.18547362 = sum of:
        0.18547362 = weight(_text_:objects in 2983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18547362 = score(doc=2983,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.31904724 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.060026903 = queryNorm
            0.5813359 = fieldWeight in 2983, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2983)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Alliance Digital Repository (ADR) is a consortial digital repository service developed by Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries (Alliance). This paper details how a standard descriptive metadata policy for repository records developed, and how that policy is currently being implemented. All digital objects in the ADR are required to have MODS and OAI-Dublin Core metadata that conform to certain minimum requirements. To help members meet the requirements, Alliance staff and the ADR Metadata Working Group, using tools available in the Fedora/Fez repository environment, have developed a customized set of core ADR material type templates in XSD form.

0.02846486 = product of:
  0.05692972 = sum of:
    0.05692972 = product of:
      0.11385944 = sum of:
        0.11385944 = weight(_text_:22 in 4407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11385944 = score(doc=4407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21020399 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.060026903 = 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

0.02846486 = product of:
  0.05692972 = sum of:
    0.05692972 = product of:
      0.11385944 = sum of:
        0.11385944 = weight(_text_:22 in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11385944 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21020399 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.060026903 = 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