Search (87 results, page 2 of 5)

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 3107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=3107,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 3107, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3107)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Europeana Sounds project aims to increase the amount of cultural audio content in Europeana. It also strongly focuses on enriching the metadata records that are aggregated by Europeana. To provide metadata to Europeana, Data Providers are asked to convert their records from the format and model they use internally to a specific profile of the Europeana Data Model (EDM) for sound resources. These metadata include subjects, which typically use a vocabulary internal to each partner.

Type

a

0.002440756 = product of:
  0.004881512 = sum of:
    0.004881512 = product of:
      0.009763024 = sum of:
        0.009763024 = weight(_text_:a in 542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009763024 = score(doc=542,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1838419 = fieldWeight in 542, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=542)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In 2004, the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research funded a major terminology mapping initiative at the GESIS Social Science Information Centre in Bonn (GESIS-IZ), which will find its conclusion this year. The task of this terminology mapping initiative was to organize, create and manage 'crossconcordances' between major controlled vocabularies (thesauri, classification systems, subject heading lists) centred around the social sciences but quickly extending to other subject areas. Cross-concordances are intellectually (manually) created crosswalks that determine equivalence, hierarchy, and association relations between terms from two controlled vocabularies. Most vocabularies have been related bilaterally, that is, there is a cross-concordance relating terms from vocabulary A to vocabulary B as well as a cross-concordance relating terms from vocabulary B to vocabulary A (bilateral relations are not necessarily symmetrical). Till August 2007, 24 controlled vocabularies from 11 disciplines will be connected with vocabulary sizes ranging from 2,000 - 17,000 terms per vocabulary. To date more than 260,000 relations are generated. A database including all vocabularies and cross-concordances was built and a 'heterogeneity service' developed, a web service, which makes the cross-concordances available for other applications. Many cross-concordances are already implemented and utilized for the German Social Science Information Portal Sowiport (www.sowiport.de), which searches bibliographical and other information resources (incl. 13 databases with 10 different vocabularies and ca. 2.5 million references).
In the final phase of the project, a major evaluation effort is under way to test and measure the effectiveness of the vocabulary mappings in an information system environment. Actual user queries are tested in a distributed search environment, where several bibliographic databases with different controlled vocabularies are searched at the same time. Three query variations are compared to each other: a free-text search without focusing on using the controlled vocabulary or terminology mapping; a controlled vocabulary search, where terms from one vocabulary (a 'home' vocabulary thought to be familiar to the user of a particular database) are used to search all databases; and finally, a search, where controlled vocabulary terms are translated into the terms of the respective controlled vocabulary of the database. For evaluation purposes, types of cross-concordances are distinguished between intradisciplinary vocabularies (vocabularies within the social sciences) and interdisciplinary vocabularies (social sciences to other disciplines as well as other combinations). Simultaneously, an extensive quantitative analysis is conducted aimed at finding patterns in terminology mappings that can explain trends in the effectiveness of terminology mappings, particularly looking at overlapping terms, types of determined relations (equivalence, hierarchy etc.), size of participating vocabularies, etc. This project is the largest terminology mapping effort in Germany. The number and variety of controlled vocabularies targeted provide an optimal basis for insights and further research opportunities. To our knowledge, terminology mapping efforts have rarely been evaluated with stringent qualitative and quantitative measures. This research should contribute in this area. For the NKOS workshop, we plan to present an overview of the project and participating vocabularies, an introduction to the heterogeneity service and its application as well as some of the results and findings of the evaluation, which will be concluded in August.

0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 528) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=528,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 528, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=528)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 1574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=1574,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 1574, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1574)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper describes an approach to SKOS vocabulary mapping that takes into account the context in which vocabulary terms are used in annotations. The standard vocabulary mapping properties in SKOS only allow for binary mappings between concepts. In the BestMap ontology, annotated resources are the contexts in which annotations coincide and allow for a more fine grained control over when mappings hold. A mapping between two vocabularies is defined as a class that groups descriptions of a resource. We use the OWL 2 features for property chains, disjoint properties, union, intersection and negation together with careful use of equivalence and subsumption to specify these mappings.

0.002325213 = product of:
  0.004650426 = sum of:
    0.004650426 = product of:
      0.009300852 = sum of:
        0.009300852 = weight(_text_:a in 2127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009300852 = score(doc=2127,freq=42.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17513901 = fieldWeight in 2127, product of:
              6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
                42.0 = termFreq=42.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2127)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"When dealing with a large-scale and widely-used knowledge organization system like the Dewey Decimal Classification, we often tend to focus solely on the organization aspect, which is closely intertwined with editorial work. This is perfectly understandable, since developing and updating the DDC, keeping up with current scientific developments, spotting new trends in both scholarly communication and popular publishing, and figuring out how to fit those patterns into the structure of the scheme are as intriguing as they are challenging. From the organization perspective, the intended user of the scheme is mainly the classifier. Dewey acts very much as a number-building engine, providing richly documented concepts to help with classification decisions. Since the Middle Ages, quasi-religious battles have been fought over the "valid" arrangement of places according to specific views of the world, as parodied by Jorge Luis Borges and others. Organizing knowledge has always been primarily an ontological activity; it is about putting the world into the classification. However, there is another side to this coin--the discovery side. While the hierarchical organization of the DDC establishes a default set of places and neighborhoods that is also visible in the physical manifestation of library shelves, this is just one set of relationships in the DDC. A KOS (Knowledge Organization System) becomes powerful by expressing those other relationships in a manner that not only collocates items in a physical place but in a knowledge space, and exposes those other relationships in ways beneficial and congenial to the unique perspective of an information seeker.
What are those "other" relationships that Dewey possesses and that seem so important to surface? Firstly, there is the relationship of concepts to resources. Dewey has been used for a long time, and over 200,000 numbers are assigned to information resources each year and added to WorldCat by the Library of Congress and the German National Library alone. Secondly, we have relationships between concepts in the scheme itself. Dewey provides a rich set of non-hierarchical relations, indicating other relevant and related subjects across disciplinary boundaries. Thirdly, perhaps most importantly, there is the relationship between the same concepts across different languages. Dewey has been translated extensively, and current versions are available in French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Spanish, and Vietnamese. Briefer representations of the top-three levels (the DDC Summaries) are available in several languages in the DeweyBrowser. This multilingual nature of the scheme allows searchers to access a broader range of resources or to switch the language of--and thus localize--subject metadata seamlessly. MelvilClass, a Dewey front-end developed by the German National Library for the German translation, could be used as a common interface to the DDC in any language, as it is built upon the standard DDC data format. It is not hard to give an example of the basic terminology of a class pulled together in a multilingual way: <class/794.8> a skos:Concept ; skos:notation "794.8"^^ddc:notation ; skos:prefLabel "Computer games"@en ; skos:prefLabel "Computerspiele"@de ; skos:prefLabel "Jeux sur ordinateur"@fr ; skos:prefLabel "Juegos por computador"@es .
Expressed in such manner, the Dewey number provides a language-independent representation of a Dewey concept, accompanied by language-dependent assertions about the concept. This information, identified by a URI, can be easily consumed by semantic web agents and used in various metadata scenarios. Fourthly, as we have seen, it is important to play well with others, i.e., establishing and maintaining relationships to other KOS and making the scheme available in different formats. As noted in the Dewey blog post "Tags and Dewey," since no single scheme is ever going to be the be-all, end-all solution for knowledge discovery, DDC concepts have been extensively mapped to other vocabularies and taxonomies, sometimes bridging them and acting as a backbone, sometimes using them as additional access vocabulary to be able to do more work "behind the scenes." To enable other applications and schemes to make use of those relationships, the full Dewey database is available in XML format; RDF-based formats and a web service are forthcoming. Pulling those relationships together under a common surface will be the next challenge going forward. In the semantic web community the concept of Linked Data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_Data) currently receives some attention, with its emphasis on exposing and connecting data using technologies like URIs, HTTP and RDF to improve information discovery on the web. With its focus on relationships and discovery, it seems that Dewey will be well prepared to become part of this big linked data set. Now it is about putting the classification back into the world!"

0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 4645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=4645,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 4645, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4645)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Evaluation of ontology alignments is in practice done in two ways: (1) assessing individual correspondences and (2) comparing the alignment to a reference alignment. However, this type of evaluation does not guarantee that an application which uses the alignment will perform well. In this paper, we contribute to the current ontology alignment evaluation practices by proposing two alternative evaluation methods that take into account some characteristics of a usage scenario without doing a full-fledged end-to-end evaluation. We compare different evaluation approaches in three case studies, focussing on methodological issues. Each case study considers an alignment between a different pair of ontologies, ranging from rich and well-structured to small and poorly structured. This enables us to conclude on the use of different evaluation approaches in different settings.

0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 2113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=2113,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2113, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2113)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

For some years mapping has been one of the main tasks in the EDUG member countries. While the ISO standard on mapping and interoperability with other vocabularies (ISO 25964-2) gives some advice on creating mappings between a thesaurus and e.g. a classification system, it does not deal with Dewey Decimal Classification specifically. The EDUG members have felt a growing need to discuss and record the knowledge acquired in mapping projects where either the source or the target vocabulary is DDC. The recommendations below are the result of a seminar on mapping in connection with the EDUG annual meeting in April 2015. The recommendations are not exhaustive and will be subject to change as EDUG members gain more experience in this field of work. We still hope that institutions planning to embark on a mapping project to/from DDC, may find the guidelines helpful.

0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=125,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 125, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=125)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper gives a comprehensive overview over the problem of Semantic Interoperability in the Cultural Heritage domain, with a particular focus on solutions centered around extensional, i.e., instance-based, ontology matching methods. It presents three typical scenarios requiring interoperability, one with homogenous collections, one with heterogeneous collections, and one with multi-lingual collection. It discusses two different ways to evaluate potential alignments, one based on the application of re-indexing, one using a reference alignment. To these scenarios we apply extensional matching with different similarity measures which gives interesting insights. Finally, we firmly position our work in the Cultural Heritage context through an extensive discussion of the relevance for, and issues related to this specific field. The findings are as unspectacular as expected but nevertheless important: the provided methods can really improve interoperability in a number of important cases, but they are not universal solutions to all related problems. This paper will provide a solid foundation for any future work on Semantic Interoperability in the Cultural Heritage domain, in particular for anybody intending to apply extensional methods.

Type

a

0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 1827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=1827,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1827, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1827)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The one-year pilot project Methodology for mapping Humord to WebDewey at the University of Oslo Library (henceforth abbreviated UiO Library) was a sub-project of the larger project Towards a general Norwegian thesaurus? The results of the project were reported to the National Library of Norway in March. The project has received new funding and is prolonged as the two-year project Mapping to Norwegian WebDewey. The present document provides a presentation of the mapping project at the UiO Library, at the point when we closed the pilot and continued our efforts in the prolonged project. The paper is largely a translation of the pilot project report as per March 1st 2015, enriched with some updates and comments. It is indeed an intellectual work in progress, so the discussions, opinions and solutions presented below are under constant debate and review in our project group. This "state of the art" description of our challenges in mapping a thesaurus to WebDewey is intended as a starting point for our joint discussions at the EDUG seminar in Naples.

0.0021393995 = product of:
  0.004278799 = sum of:
    0.004278799 = product of:
      0.008557598 = sum of:
        0.008557598 = weight(_text_:a in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008557598 = score(doc=533,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Recently, a growing amount of systems that allow personal content annotation (tagging) are being created, ranging from personal sites for organising bookmarks (del.icio.us), photos (flickr.com) or videos (video.google.com, youtube.com) to systems for managing bibliographies for scientific research projects (citeulike.org, connotea.org). Simultaneously, a debate on the pro and cons of allowing users to add personal keywords to digital content has arisen. One recurrent point-of-discussion is whether tagging can solve the well-known vocabulary problem: In order to support successful retrieval in complex environments, it is necessary to index an object with a variety of aliases (cf. Furnas 1987). In this spirit, social tagging enhances the pool of rigid, traditional keywording by adding user-created retrieval vocabularies. Furthermore, tagging goes beyond simple personal content-based keywords by providing meta-keywords like funny or interesting that "identify qualities or characteristics" (Golder and Huberman 2006, Kipp and Campbell 2006, Kipp 2007, Feinberg 2006, Kroski 2005). Contrarily, tagging systems are claimed to lead to semantic difficulties that may hinder the precision and recall of tagging systems (e.g. the polysemy problem, cf. Marlow 2006, Lakoff 2005, Golder and Huberman 2006). Empirical research on social tagging is still rare and mostly from a computer linguistics or librarian point-of-view (Voß 2007) which focus either on the automatic statistical analyses of large data sets, or intellectually inspect single cases of tag usage: Some scientists studied the evolution of tag vocabularies and tag distribution in specific systems (Golder and Huberman 2006, Hammond 2005). Others concentrate on tagging behaviour and tagger characteristics in collaborative systems. (Hammond 2005, Kipp and Campbell 2007, Feinberg 2006, Sen 2006). However, little research has been conducted on the functional and linguistic characteristics of tags.1 An analysis of these patterns could show differences between user wording and conventional keywording. In order to provide a reasonable basis for comparison, a classification system for existing tags is needed.
Therefore our main research questions are as follows: - Is it possible to discover regular patterns in tag usage and to establish a stable category model? - Does a specific tagging language comparable to internet slang or chatspeak evolve? - How do social tags differ from traditional (author / expert) keywords? - To what degree are social tags taken from or findable in the full text of the tagged resource? - Do tags in a research literature context go beyond simple content description (e.g. tags indicating time or task-related information, cf. Kipp et al. 2006)?

0.0021393995 = product of:
  0.004278799 = sum of:
    0.004278799 = product of:
      0.008557598 = sum of:
        0.008557598 = weight(_text_:a in 1224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008557598 = score(doc=1224,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 1224, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1224)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article provides an overview of the work carried out by the HILT Project <http://hilt.cdlr.strath.ac.uk> in making recommendations towards interoperable subject access, or cross-searching and browsing distributed services amongst the archives, libraries, museums and electronic services sectors. The article details consensus achieved at the 19 June 2001 HILT Workshop and discusses the HILT Stakeholder Survey. In 1999 Péter Jascó wrote that "savvy searchers" are asking for direction. Three years later the scenario he describes, that of searchers cross-searching databases where the subject vocabulary used in each case is different, still rings true. Jascó states that, in many cases, databases do not offer the necessary aids required to use the "preferred terms of the subject-controlled vocabulary". The databases to which Jascó refers are Dialog and DataStar. However, the situation he describes applies as well to the area that HILT is researching: that of cross-searching and browsing by subject across databases and catalogues in archives, libraries, museums and online information services. So how does a user access information on a particular subject when it is indexed across a multitude of services under different, but quite often similar, subject terms? Also, if experienced searchers are having problems, what about novice searchers? As information professionals, it is our role to investigate such problems and recommend solutions. Although there is no hard empirical evidence one way or another, HILT participants agree that the problem for users attempting to search across databases is real. There is a strong likelihood that users are disadvantaged by the use of different subject terminology combined with a multitude of different practices taking place within the archive, library, museums and online communities. Arguably, failure to address this problem of interoperability undermines the value of cross-searching and browsing facilities, and wastes public money because relevant resources are 'hidden' from searchers. HILT is charged with analysing this broad problem through qualitative methods, with the main aim of presenting a set of recommendations on how to make it easier to cross-search and browse distributed services. Because this is a very large problem composed of many strands, HILT recognizes that any proposed solutions must address a host of issues. Recommended solutions must be affordable, sustainable, politically acceptable, useful, future-proof and international in scope. It also became clear to the HILT team that progress toward finding solutions to the interoperability problem could only be achieved through direct dialogue with other parties keen to solve this problem, and that the problem was as much about consensus building as it was about finding a solution. This article describes how HILT approached the cross-searching problem; how it investigated the nature of the problem, detailing results from the HILT Stakeholder Survey; and how it achieved consensus through the recent HILT Workshop.

Type

a

0.0021393995 = product of:
  0.004278799 = sum of:
    0.004278799 = product of:
      0.008557598 = sum of:
        0.008557598 = weight(_text_:a in 1076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008557598 = score(doc=1076,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 1076, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1076)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The collocated conferences for DC-2013 and iPRES-2013 in Lisbon attracted 392 participants from over 37 countries. In addition to the Tuesday through Thursday conference days comprised of peer-reviewed paper and special sessions, 223 participants attended pre-conference tutorials and 246 participated in post-conference workshops for the collocated events. The peer-reviewed papers and presentations are available on the conference website Presentation page (URLs above). In sum, it was a great conference. In addition to links to PDFs of papers, project reports and posters (and their associated presentations), the published proceedings include presentation PDFs for the following: KEYNOTES Darling, we need to talk - Gildas Illien TUTORIALS -- Ivan Herman: "Introduction to Linked Open Data (LOD)" -- Steven Miller: "Introduction to Ontology Concepts and Terminology" -- Kai Eckert: "Metadata Provenance" -- Daniel Garjio: "The W3C Provenance Ontology" SPECIAL SESSIONS -- "Application Profiles as an Alternative to OWL Ontologies" -- "Long-term Preservation and Governance of RDF Vocabularies (W3C Sponsored)" -- "Data Enrichment and Transformation in the LOD Context: Poor & Popular vs Rich & Lonely--Can't we achieve both?" -- "Why Schema.org?"

Content

FULL PAPERS Provenance and Annotations for Linked Data - Kai Eckert How Portable Are the Metadata Standards for Scientific Data? A Proposal for a Metadata Infrastructure - Jian Qin, Kai Li Lessons Learned in Implementing the Extended Date/Time Format in a Large Digital Library - Hannah Tarver, Mark Phillips Towards the Representation of Chinese Traditional Music: A State of the Art Review of Music Metadata Standards - Mi Tian, György Fazekas, Dawn Black, Mark Sandler Maps and Gaps: Strategies for Vocabulary Design and Development - Diane Ileana Hillmann, Gordon Dunsire, Jon Phipps A Method for the Development of Dublin Core Application Profiles (Me4DCAP V0.1): Aescription - Mariana Curado Malta, Ana Alice Baptista Find and Combine Vocabularies to Design Metadata Application Profiles using Schema Registries and LOD Resources - Tsunagu Honma, Mitsuharu Nagamori, Shigeo Sugimoto Achieving Interoperability between the CARARE Schema for Monuments and Sites and the Europeana Data Model - Antoine Isaac, Valentine Charles, Kate Fernie, Costis Dallas, Dimitris Gavrilis, Stavros Angelis With a Focused Intent: Evolution of DCMI as a Research Community - Jihee Beak, Richard P. Smiraglia Metadata Capital in a Data Repository - Jane Greenberg, Shea Swauger, Elena Feinstein DC Metadata is Alive and Well - A New Standard for Education - Liddy Nevile Representation of the UNIMARC Bibliographic Data Format in Resource Description Framework - Gordon Dunsire, Mirna Willer, Predrag Perozic

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 5902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=5902,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 5902, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5902)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With networked information access to heterogeneous data sources, the problem of terminology provision and interoperability of controlled vocabulary schemes such as thesauri becomes increasingly urgent. Solutions are needed to improve the performance of full-text retrieval systems and to guide the design of controlled terminology schemes for use in structured data, including metadata. Thesauri are created in different languages, with different scope and points of view and at different levels of abstraction and detail, to accomodate access to a specific group of collections. In any wider search accessing distributed collections, the user would like to start with familiar terminology and let the system find out the correspondences to other terminologies in order to retrieve equivalent results from all addressed collections. This paper investigates possible semantic differences that may hinder the unambiguous mapping and transition from one thesaurus to another. It focusses on the differences of meaning of terms and their relations as intended by their creators for indexing and querying a specific collection, in contrast to methods investigating the statistical relevance of terms for objects in a collection. It develops a notion of optimal mapping, paying particular attention to the intellectual quality of mappings between terms from different vocabularies and to problems of polysemy. Proposals are made to limit the vagueness introduced by the transition from one vocabulary to another. The paper shows ways in which thesaurus creators can improve their methodology to meet the challenges of networked access of distributed collections created under varying conditions. For system implementers, the discussion will lead to a better understanding of the complexity of the problem

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=130,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 130, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=130)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A large on-going activity for digitization, dissemination and preservation of cultural heritage is taking place in Europe, United States and the world, which involves all types of cultural institutions, i.e., galleries, libraries, museums, archives and all types of cultural content. The development of Europeana, as a single point of access to European Cultural Heritage, has probably been the most important result of the activities in the field till now. Semantic interoperability, linked open data, user involvement and user generated content are key issues in these developments. This paper presents a system that provides content providers and users the ability to map, in an effective way, their own metadata schemas to common domain standards and the Europeana (ESE, EDM) data models. The system is currently largely used by many European research projects and the Europeana. Based on these mappings, semantic query answering techniques are proposed as a means for effective access to digital cultural heritage, providing users with content enrichment, linking of data based on their involvement and facilitating content search and retrieval. An experimental study is presented, involving content from national content aggregators, as well as thematic content aggregators and the Europeana, which illustrates the proposed system

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 3870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=3870,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 3870, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3870)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Data from multiple knowledge organization systems are combined to provide a global overview of the content holdings of a small personal library. Subject headings and classification data are used to effectively map the combined book and topic space of the library. While harvested and manipulated by hand, the work reveals issues and potential solutions when using automated techniques to produce topic maps of much larger libraries. The small library visualized consists of the thirty-nine, digital, English language books found in the Osama Bin Laden (OBL) compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan upon his death. As this list of books has garnered considerable media attention, it is worth providing a visual overview of the subject content of these books - some of which is not readily apparent from the titles. Metadata from subject headings and classification numbers was combined to create book-subject maps. Tree maps of the classification data were also produced. The books contain 328 subject headings. In order to enhance the base map with meaningful thematic overlay, library holding count data was also harvested (and aggregated from duplicates). This additional data revealed the relative scarcity or popularity of individual books.

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 4434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=4434,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 4434, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4434)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper presents an approach to enhance interoperability between heterogeneous ontologies. It consists in adapting the ranking of concepts to the final users and their work context. The computations are based on an upper domain ontology, a task hierarchy and a user profile. As prerequisites, OWL ontologie have to be given, and an articulation ontology has to be built.

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=604,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 604, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=604)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

iQvoc is a new open source SKOS-XL vocabulary management tool developed by the Federal Environment Agency, Germany, and innoQ Deutschland GmbH. Its immediate purpose is maintaining and publishing reference vocabularies in the upcoming Linked Data cloud of environmental information, but it may be easily adapted to host any SKOS- XL compliant vocabulary. iQvoc is implemented as a Ruby on Rails application running on top of JRuby - the Java implementation of the Ruby Programming Language. To increase the user experience when editing content, iQvoc uses heavily the JavaScript library jQuery.

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 3874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=3874,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 3874, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3874)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We take a small sample of works and compare how these are classified within both the Universal Decimal Classification and the Basic concepts Classification. We examine notational length, expressivity, network effects, and the number of subject strings. One key finding is that BCC typically synthesizes many more terms than UDC in classifying a particular document - but the length of classificatory notations is roughly equivalent for the two KOSs. BCC captures documents with fewer subject strings (generally one) but these are more complex.

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 2038) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=2038,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2038, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2038)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The BAsel Register of Thesauri, Ontologies & Classifications (BARTOC, http://bartoc.org) is a bibliographic database aiming to record metadata of as many Knowledge Organization Systems as possible. It has a facetted, responsive web design search interface in 20 EU languages. With more than 1'300 interdisciplinary items in 77 languages, BARTOC is the largest database of its kind, multilingual both by content and features, and it is still growing. This being said, the demonstration of BARTOC would be suitable for topic nr. 10 [Multilingual and Interdisciplinary KOS applications and tools]. BARTOC has been developed by the University Library of Basel, Switzerland. It is rooted in the tradition of library and information science of collecting bibliographic records of controlled and structured vocabularies, yet in a more contemporary manner. BARTOC is based on the open source content management system Drupal 7.

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=535,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 535, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=535)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

ISO 2788 and ISO 5964, the international standards for monolingual and multilingual thesauri respectively dated 1986 and 1985, are very much in need of revision. A proposal to revise them was recently approved by the relevant subcommittee, ISO TC46/SC9. The work will be based on BS 8723, a five part standard of which Parts 1 and 2 were published in 2005, Parts 3 and 4 are scheduled for publication in 2007, and Part 5 is still in draft. This subsession will address aspects of the whole revision project. It is conceived as a panel session starting with a brief overview from the project leader. Then there are three presentations of 15 minutes, plus 5 minutes each for specific questions. At the end we have 20 minutes for questions to any or all of the panel, and discussion of issues from the workshop participants.