Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.043040905 = product of:
  0.08608181 = sum of:
    0.08608181 = product of:
      0.17216362 = sum of:
        0.17216362 = weight(_text_:daten in 3732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17216362 = score(doc=3732,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.24402376 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.759573 = idf(docFreq=1029, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051270094 = queryNorm
            0.7055199 = fieldWeight in 3732, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.759573 = idf(docFreq=1029, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3732)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Seit einiger Zeit stellen Bibliotheken ihre bibliografischen Metadadaten verstärkt offen in Form von Linked Data zur Verfügung. Dabei kommen jedoch ganz unterschiedliche Modelle für die Strukturierung der bibliografischen Daten zur Anwendung. Manche Bibliotheken verwenden ein auf FRBR basierendes Modell mit mehreren Schichten von Entitäten, während andere flache, am Datensatz orientierte Modelle nutzen. Der Wildwuchs bei den Datenmodellen erschwert die Nachnutzung der bibliografischen Daten. Im Ergebnis haben die Bibliotheken die früheren MARC-Silos nur mit zueinander inkompatiblen Linked-Data-Silos vertauscht. Deshalb ist es häufig schwierig, Datensets miteinander zu kombinieren und nachzunutzen. Kleinere Unterschiede in der Datenmodellierung lassen sich zwar durch Schema Mappings in den Griff bekommen, doch erscheint es fraglich, ob die Interoperabilität insgesamt zugenommen hat. Der Beitrag stellt die Ergebnisse einer Studie zu verschiedenen veröffentlichten Sets von bibliografischen Daten vor. Dabei werden auch die unterschiedlichen Modelle betrachtet, um bibliografische Daten als RDF darzustellen, sowie Werkzeuge zur Erzeugung von entsprechenden Daten aus dem MARC-Format. Abschließend wird der von der Finnischen Nationalbibliothek verfolgte Ansatz behandelt.

0.014735519 = product of:
  0.029471038 = sum of:
    0.029471038 = product of:
      0.058942076 = sum of:
        0.058942076 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058942076 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17953913 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051270094 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The paper discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and /or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the DDC (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.

0.012156182 = product of:
  0.024312364 = sum of:
    0.024312364 = product of:
      0.048624728 = sum of:
        0.048624728 = weight(_text_:22 in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048624728 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17953913 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051270094 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 759, 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=759)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

11. 5.2013 19:22:18

0.010419584 = product of:
  0.020839168 = sum of:
    0.020839168 = product of:
      0.041678336 = sum of:
        0.041678336 = weight(_text_:22 in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041678336 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17953913 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051270094 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4820, 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=4820)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3.12.2016 18:39:22