Search (230 results, page 1 of 12)

  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  1. Proffitt, M.: Pulling it all together : use of METS in RLG cultural materials service (2004) 0.13 
    0.13068572 = product of:
  0.32671428 = sum of:
    0.2499837 = weight(_text_:objects in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2499837 = score(doc=767,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = 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)
    0.076730594 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076730594 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
  2. Understanding metadata (2004) 0.10 
    0.101398304 = product of:
  0.25349575 = sum of:
    0.17676517 = weight(_text_:objects in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17676517 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = 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)
    0.076730594 = weight(_text_:22 in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076730594 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
  3. Yee, R.; Beaubien, R.: ¬A preliminary crosswalk from METS to IMS content packaging (2004) 0.10 
    0.09801429 = product of:
  0.24503572 = sum of:
    0.18748778 = weight(_text_:objects in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18748778 = score(doc=4752,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = 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)
    0.05754794 = weight(_text_:22 in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05754794 = score(doc=4752,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
  4. Marchiori, M.: ¬The limits of Web metadata, and beyond (1998) 0.09 
    0.08872351 = product of:
  0.22180878 = sum of:
    0.15466951 = weight(_text_:objects in 3383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15466951 = score(doc=3383,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = 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)
    0.06713927 = weight(_text_:22 in 3383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06713927 = score(doc=3383,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
  5. Lubas, R.L.; Wolfe, R.H.W.; Fleischman, M.: Creating metadata practices for MIT's OpenCourseWare Project (2004) 0.09 
    0.08872351 = product of:
  0.22180878 = sum of:
    0.15466951 = weight(_text_:objects in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15466951 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = 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)
    0.06713927 = weight(_text_:22 in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06713927 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
  6. Reed, B.: Metadata: core record or core business? (1997) 0.08 
    0.08288572 = product of:
  0.2072143 = sum of:
    0.15466951 = weight(_text_:objects in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15466951 = score(doc=1764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 1764, 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=1764)
    0.05254479 = weight(_text_:21 in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05254479 = score(doc=1764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.23959327 = fieldWeight in 1764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1764)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Raises critical questions about the way archivists should be managing the metadata associated with records management and recordkeeping processes in order to maintain records in their context through time in complex and rapidly changing environments. Explores some current models for specifying record metadata, drawing on the outcomes of research projects and standards activities. Speculates on the potential value of defining a core set of record metadata. The mapping of the overlap between the metadata specified in the Pittsburgh University and British Columbia University projects, and the Australian Records Management Standards, reveals a possible core set of record metadada, analysis of which has shown that it would essentially enable the descriptions of the records as passive objects
    Date
    3. 8.1998 18:21:41
  7. Renear, A.H.; Wickett, K.M.; Urban, R.J.; Dubin, D.; Shreeves, S.L.: Collection/item metadata relationships (2008) 0.08 
    0.076048724 = product of:
  0.19012181 = sum of:
    0.13257387 = weight(_text_:objects in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13257387 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = 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)
    0.05754794 = weight(_text_:22 in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05754794 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
  8. El-Sherbini, M.: Metadata and the future of cataloging (2001) 0.07 
    0.07229693 = product of:
  0.18074232 = sum of:
    0.10401172 = weight(_text_:21 in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10401172 = score(doc=751,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.4742717 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
    0.076730594 = weight(_text_:22 in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076730594 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 751, 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=751)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article is a survey of representative metadata efforts comparing them to MARC 21 metadata in order to determine if new electronic formats require the development of a new set of standards. This study surveys the ongoing metadata projects in order to identify what types of metadata exist and how they are used and also compares and analyzes selected metadata elements in an attempt to illustrate how they are related to MARC 21 metadata format elements.
    Date
    23. 1.2007 11:22:30
    Object
    MARC 21
  9. Kopácsi, S. et al.: Development of a classification server to support metadata harmonization in a long term preservation system (2016) 0.07 
    0.0683909 = product of:
  0.17097723 = sum of:
    0.07506399 = weight(_text_:21 in 3280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07506399 = score(doc=3280,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.3422761 = fieldWeight in 3280, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3280)
    0.09591324 = weight(_text_:22 in 3280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09591324 = score(doc=3280,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3280, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3280)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    4.12.2016 18:21:43
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
  10. Bueno-de-la-Fuente, G.; Hernández-Pérez, T.; Rodríguez-Mateos, D.; Méndez-Rodríguez, E.M.; Martín-Galán, B.: Study on the use of metadata for digital learning objects in University Institutional Repositories (MODERI) (2009) 0.06 
    0.064947665 = product of:
  0.32473832 = sum of:
    0.32473832 = weight(_text_:objects in 2981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.32473832 = score(doc=2981,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.
  11. Gorman, M.: Metadata or cataloguing? : a false choice (1999) 0.06 
    0.06466233 = product of:
  0.16165581 = sum of:
    0.08492521 = weight(_text_:21 in 6095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08492521 = score(doc=6095,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.3872412 = fieldWeight in 6095, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6095)
    0.076730594 = weight(_text_:22 in 6095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076730594 = score(doc=6095,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6095, 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=6095)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    21. 3.1998 13:17:50
    2. 8.2001 19:32:21
    Source
    Journal of Internet cataloging. 2(1999) no.1, S.5-22
  12. Cantara, L.: METS: the metadata encoding and transmission standard (2005) 0.06 
    0.05928885 = product of:
  0.29644424 = sum of:
    0.29644424 = weight(_text_:objects in 5727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29644424 = score(doc=5727,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.
  13. Hunter, J.: MetaNet - a metadata term thesaurus to enable semantic interoperability between metadata domains (2001) 0.06 
    0.05920409 = product of:
  0.14801022 = sum of:
    0.11047824 = weight(_text_:objects in 6471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11047824 = score(doc=6471,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 6471, 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=6471)
    0.037531994 = weight(_text_:21 in 6471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037531994 = score(doc=6471,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.17113805 = fieldWeight in 6471, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6471)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Metadata interoperability is a fundamental requirement for access to information within networked knowledge organization systems. The Harmony international digital library project [1] has developed a common underlying data model (the ABC model) to enable the scalable mapping of metadata descriptions across domains and media types. The ABC model [2] provides a set of basic building blocks for metadata modeling and recognizes the importance of 'events' to describe unambiguously metadata for objects with a complex history. To test and evaluate the interoperability capabilities of this model, we applied it to some real multimedia examples and analysed the results of mapping from the ABC model to various different metadata domains using XSLT [3]. This work revealed serious limitations in the ability of XSLT to support flexible dynamic semantic mapping. To overcome this, we developed MetaNet [4], a metadata term thesaurus which provides the additional semantic knowledge that is non-existent within declarative XML-encoded metadata descriptions. This paper describes MetaNet, its RDF Schema [5] representation and a hybrid mapping approach which combines the structural and syntactic mapping capabilities of XSLT with the semantic knowledge of MetaNet, to enable flexible and dynamic mapping among metadata standards.
    Date
    12. 8.2001 15:57:21
  14. Qin, J.; Wesley, K.: Web indexing with meta fields : a survey of Web objects in polymer chemistry (1998) 0.05 
    0.05302955 = product of:
  0.26514775 = sum of:
    0.26514775 = weight(_text_:objects in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.26514775 = score(doc=3589,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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
  15. Rice, R.: Applying DC to institutional data repositories (2008) 0.05 
    0.050699152 = product of:
  0.12674788 = sum of:
    0.08838259 = weight(_text_:objects in 2664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08838259 = score(doc=2664,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = 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)
    0.038365297 = weight(_text_:22 in 2664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038365297 = score(doc=2664,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
  16. Chilvers, A.: ¬The super-metadata framework for managing long-term access to digital data objects : a possible way forward with specific reference to the UK (2002) 0.05 
    0.049407374 = product of:
  0.24703686 = sum of:
    0.24703686 = weight(_text_:objects in 4468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24703686 = score(doc=4468,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.37626395 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.)
  17. Keith, C.: Using XSLT to manipulate MARC metadata (2004) 0.05 
    0.04849674 = product of:
  0.12124185 = sum of:
    0.06369391 = weight(_text_:21 in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06369391 = score(doc=4747,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.2904309 = fieldWeight in 4747, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4747)
    0.05754794 = weight(_text_:22 in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05754794 = score(doc=4747,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4747, 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=4747)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This paper describes the MARCXML architecture implemented at the Library of Congress. It gives an overview of the component pieces of the architecture, including the MARCXML schema and the MARCXML toolkit, while giving a brief tutorial on their use. Several different applications of the architecture and tools are discussed to illustrate the features of the toolkit being developed thus far. Nearly any metadata format can take advantage of the features of the toolkit, and the process of the toolkit enabling a new format is discussed. Finally, this paper intends to foster new ideas with regards to the transformation of descriptive metadata, especially using XML tools. In this paper the following conventions will be used: MARC21 will refer to MARC 21 records in the ISO 2709 record structure used today; MARCXML will refer to MARC 21 records in an XML structure.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.122-130
  18. Hakala, J.: Dublin core in 1997 : a report from Dublin Core metadata workshops 4 & 5 (1998) 0.05 
    0.047873624 = product of:
  0.119684055 = sum of:
    0.05254479 = weight(_text_:21 in 2220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05254479 = score(doc=2220,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.23959327 = fieldWeight in 2220, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2220)
    0.06713927 = weight(_text_:22 in 2220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06713927 = score(doc=2220,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2220, 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=2220)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    8. 8.1996 21:43:03
    Source
    Nordinfo Nytt. 1997, nos.3/4, S.10-22
  19. Liechti, O.; Sifer, M.J.; Ichikawa, T.: Structured graph format : XML metadata for describing Web site structure (1998) 0.05 
    0.047873624 = product of:
  0.119684055 = sum of:
    0.05254479 = weight(_text_:21 in 3597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05254479 = score(doc=3597,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.23959327 = fieldWeight in 3597, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3597)
    0.06713927 = weight(_text_:22 in 3597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06713927 = score(doc=3597,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3597, 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=3597)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:08:06
    Source
    Computer networks and ISDN systems. 30(1998) nos.1/7, S.11-21
  20. Warner, S.: E-prints and the Open Archives Initiative (2003) 0.05 
    0.047873624 = product of:
  0.119684055 = sum of:
    0.05254479 = weight(_text_:21 in 4772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05254479 = score(doc=4772,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2193083 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.23959327 = fieldWeight in 4772, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4772)
    0.06713927 = weight(_text_:22 in 4772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06713927 = score(doc=4772,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24790114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07079189 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4772, 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=4772)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    18.12.2005 13:18:22
    Source
    Library hi tech. 21(2003) no.2, S.151-158

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 207
  • el 20
  • s 10
  • m 7
  • x 3
  • b 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications