Search (39 results, page 2 of 2)

0.009098486 = product of:
  0.027295457 = sum of:
    0.027295457 = product of:
      0.054590914 = sum of:
        0.054590914 = weight(_text_:project in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054590914 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19509704 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04622078 = queryNorm
            0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Most libraries and other cultural heritage institutions use controlled knowledge organisation systems, such as thesauri, to describe their collections. Unfortunately, as most of these institutions use different such systems, united access to heterogeneous collections is difficult. Things are even worse in an international context when concepts have labels in different languages. In order to overcome the multilingual interoperability problem between European Libraries, extensive work has been done to manually map concepts from different knowledge organisation systems, which is a tedious and expensive process. Within the TELplus project, we developed and evaluated methods to automatically discover these mappings, using different ontology matching techniques. In experiments on major French, English and German subject heading lists Rameau, LCSH and SWD, we show that we can automatically produce mappings of surprisingly good quality, even when using relatively naive translation and matching methods.

0.009098486 = product of:
  0.027295457 = sum of:
    0.027295457 = product of:
      0.054590914 = sum of:
        0.054590914 = weight(_text_:project in 2113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054590914 = score(doc=2113,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19509704 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04622078 = queryNorm
            0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 2113, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2113)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.009098486 = product of:
  0.027295457 = sum of:
    0.027295457 = product of:
      0.054590914 = sum of:
        0.054590914 = weight(_text_:project in 3107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054590914 = score(doc=3107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19509704 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04622078 = queryNorm
            0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 3107, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3107)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.008856199 = product of:
  0.026568595 = sum of:
    0.026568595 = product of:
      0.05313719 = sum of:
        0.05313719 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05313719 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16185729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04622078 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.008578135 = product of:
  0.025734404 = sum of:
    0.025734404 = product of:
      0.05146881 = sum of:
        0.05146881 = weight(_text_:project in 1224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05146881 = score(doc=1224,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19509704 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04622078 = queryNorm
            0.26381132 = fieldWeight in 1224, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1224)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.008578135 = product of:
  0.025734404 = sum of:
    0.025734404 = product of:
      0.05146881 = sum of:
        0.05146881 = weight(_text_:project in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05146881 = score(doc=3965,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19509704 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04622078 = queryNorm
            0.26381132 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper describes recent initiatives to make standard library metadata models and structures available to the Semantic Web, including IFLA standards such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), and International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) along with the infrastructure that supports them. The FRBR Review Group is currently developing representations of FRAD and the entityrelationship model of FRBR in resource description framework (RDF) applications, using a combination of RDF, RDF Schema (RDFS), Simple Knowledge Organisation System (SKOS) and Web Ontology Language (OWL), cross-relating both models where appropriate. The ISBD/XML Task Group is investigating the representation of ISBD in RDF. The IFLA Namespaces project is developing an administrative and technical infrastructure to support such initiatives and encourage uptake of standards by other agencies. The paper describes similar initiatives with related external standards such as RDA - resource description and access, REICAT (the new Italian cataloguing rules) and CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM). The DCMI RDA Task Group is working with the Joint Steering Committee for RDA to develop Semantic Web representations of RDA structural elements, which are aligned with FRBR and FRAD, and controlled metadata content vocabularies. REICAT is also based on FRBR, and an object-oriented version of FRBR has been integrated with CRM, which itself has an RDF representation. CRM was initially based on the metadata needs of the museum community, and is now seeking extension to the archives community with the eventual aim of developing a model common to the main cultural information domains of archives, libraries and museums. The Vocabulary Mapping Framework (VMF) project has developed a Semantic Web tool to automatically generate mappings between metadata models from the information communities, including publishers. The tool is based on several standards, including CRM, FRAD, FRBR, MARC21 and RDA.

0.008578135 = product of:
  0.025734404 = sum of:
    0.025734404 = product of:
      0.05146881 = sum of:
        0.05146881 = weight(_text_:project in 172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05146881 = score(doc=172,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19509704 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04622078 = queryNorm
            0.26381132 = fieldWeight in 172, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=172)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

This document is part of a research project funded by the IST Programme of the Commission of the European Communities as project number IST-2004-507482.

0.008349704 = product of:
  0.025049109 = sum of:
    0.025049109 = product of:
      0.050098218 = sum of:
        0.050098218 = weight(_text_:22 in 7411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050098218 = score(doc=7411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16185729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04622078 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7411, 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=7411)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

7.11.2008 10:40:22

0.008349704 = product of:
  0.025049109 = sum of:
    0.025049109 = product of:
      0.050098218 = sum of:
        0.050098218 = weight(_text_:22 in 541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050098218 = score(doc=541,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16185729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04622078 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 541, 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=541)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:46

0.0075820712 = product of:
  0.022746213 = sum of:
    0.022746213 = product of:
      0.045492426 = sum of:
        0.045492426 = weight(_text_:project in 3108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045492426 = score(doc=3108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19509704 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04622078 = queryNorm
            0.23317845 = fieldWeight in 3108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The compilation of terminological vocabularies plays a central role in the organization and retrieval of scientific texts. Both simple keyword lists as well as sophisticated modellings of relationships between terminological concepts can make a most valuable contribution to the analysis, classification, and finding of appropriate digital documents, either on the Web or within local repositories. This seems especially true for long-established scientific fields with various theoretical and historical branches, such as linguistics, where the use of terminology within documents from different origins is sometimes far from being consistent. In this short paper, we report on the early stages of a project that aims at the re-design of an existing domain-specific KOS for grammatical content grammis. In particular, we deal with the terminological part of grammis and present the state-of-the-art of this online resource as well as the key re-design principles. Further, we propose questions regarding ramifications of the Linked Open Data and Semantic Web approaches for our re-design decisions.

0.0073059904 = product of:
  0.02191797 = sum of:
    0.02191797 = product of:
      0.04383594 = sum of:
        0.04383594 = weight(_text_:22 in 540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04383594 = score(doc=540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16185729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04622078 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 540, 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=540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:27

0.0073059904 = product of:
  0.02191797 = sum of:
    0.02191797 = product of:
      0.04383594 = sum of:
        0.04383594 = weight(_text_:22 in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04383594 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16185729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04622078 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

11. 5.2013 19:22:18

0.0062622773 = product of:
  0.01878683 = sum of:
    0.01878683 = product of:
      0.03757366 = sum of:
        0.03757366 = weight(_text_:22 in 4183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03757366 = score(doc=4183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16185729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04622078 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4183, 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=4183)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 1.2011 10:16:32

0.0062622773 = product of:
  0.01878683 = sum of:
    0.01878683 = product of:
      0.03757366 = sum of:
        0.03757366 = weight(_text_:22 in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03757366 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16185729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04622078 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

3.12.2016 18:39:22

0.006065657 = product of:
  0.01819697 = sum of:
    0.01819697 = product of:
      0.03639394 = sum of:
        0.03639394 = weight(_text_:project in 4038) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03639394 = score(doc=4038,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19509704 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04622078 = queryNorm
            0.18654276 = fieldWeight in 4038, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4038)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Beiträge: Insights and Outlooks: A Retrospective View on the CrissCross Project - Jan-Helge Jacobs, Tina Mengel, Katrin Müller Translingual Retrieval: Moving between Vocabularies - MACS 2010 - Helga Karg und Yvonne Jahns Intersystem Relations: Characteristics and Functionalities - Jessica Hubrich Would an Explicit Versioning of the DDC Bring Advantages for Retrieval? - Claudia Effenberger und Julia Hauser A Semantic Web View on Concepts and their Alignments - From Specific Library Cases to a Wider Linked Data Perspective - Antoine Isaac Conceptual Foundations for Semantic Mapping and Semantic Search - Dagobert Soergel In Pursuit of Cross-Vocabulary Interoperability: Can We Standardize Mapping Types? - Stella Dextre Clarke Searching in a Multi-Thesauri-Scenario - Experiences with SKOS and Terminology Mappings - Philipp Mayr Interoperability and Semantics in RDF Representations of FRBR, FRAD and FRSAD - Gordon Dunsire FRSAD: Challenges of Modelling the Aboutness - Maja Zumer Integrating Interoperability into FRSAD - Felix Boteram

0.006065657 = product of:
  0.01819697 = sum of:
    0.01819697 = product of:
      0.03639394 = sum of:
        0.03639394 = weight(_text_:project in 1076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03639394 = score(doc=1076,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19509704 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04622078 = queryNorm
            0.18654276 = fieldWeight in 1076, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1076)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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?"

0.0053613344 = product of:
  0.016084002 = sum of:
    0.016084002 = product of:
      0.032168005 = sum of:
        0.032168005 = weight(_text_:project in 3370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032168005 = score(doc=3370,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19509704 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04622078 = queryNorm
            0.16488208 = fieldWeight in 3370, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3370)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

"Last week, I received an email from Yulia Skora in Ukraine who is working on the mapping between UDC Summary and BBK (Bibliographic Library Classification) Summary. It reminded me of yet another challenging area of work. When responding to Yulia I realised that the issues with mapping, for instance, UDC Summary to Dewey Summaries [pdf] are often made more difficult because we have to deal with classification summaries in both systems and we cannot use a known exactMatch in many situations. In 2008, following advice received from colleagues in the HILT project, two of our colleagues quickly mapped 1000 classes of Dewey Summaries to UDC Master Reference File as a whole. This appeared to be relatively simple. The mapping in this case is simply an answer to a question "and how would you say e.g. Art metal work in UDC?" But when in 2009 we realised that we were going to release 2000 classes of UDC Summary as linked data, we decided to wait until we had our UDC Summary set defined and completed to be able to publish it mapped to the Dewey Summaries. As we arrived at this stage, little did we realise how much more complex the reversed mapping of UDC Summary to Dewey Summaries would turn out to be. Mapping the Dewey Summaries to UDC highlighted situations in which the logic and structure of two systems do not agree. Especially because Dewey tends to enumerate combinations of subject and attributes that do not always logically belong together. For instance, 850 Literatures of Italian, Sardinian, Dalmatian, Romanian, Rhaeto-Romanic languages Italian literature. This class mixes languages from three different subgroups of Romance languages. Italian and Sardinian belong to Italo Romance sub-family; Romanian and Dalmatian are Balkan Romance languages and Rhaeto Romance is the third subgroup that includes Friulian Ladin and Romanch. As UDC literature is based on a strict classification of language families, Dewey class 850 has to be mapped to 3 narrower UDC classes 821.131 Literature of Italo-Romance Languages , 821.132 Literature of Rhaeto-Romance languages and 821.135 Literature of Balkan-Romance Languages, or to a broader class 821.13 Literature of Romance languages. Hence we have to be sure that we have all these classes listed in the UDC Summary to be able to express UDC-DDC many-to-one, specific-to-broader relationships.
Precombined subjects, such as those shown above from Dewey, may be expressed in UDC Summary as examples of combination within various records. To express an exact match UDC class 07 has to contain example of combination 07(7) Journals. The Press - North America. In some cases we have, therefore, added examples to UDC Summary that represent exact match to Dewey Summaries. It is unfortunate that DDC has so many classes on the top level that deal with a selection of countries or languages that are given a preferred status in the scheme, and repeating these preferences in examples of combinations of UDC emulates an unwelcome cultural bias which we have to balance out somehow. This brings us to another challenge.. UDC 913(7) Regional Geography - North America [contains 2 concepts each of which has its URI] is an exact match to Dewey 917 [represented as one concept, 1 URI]. It seems that, because they represent an exact match to Dewey numbers, these UDC examples of combinations may also need a separate URIs so that they can be published as SKOS data. Albeit challenging, mapping proves to be a very useful exercise and I am looking forward to future work here especially in relation to our plans to map UDC Summary to Colon Classification. We are discussing this project with colleagues from DRTC in Bangalore (India)."

0.00530745 = product of:
  0.015922349 = sum of:
    0.015922349 = product of:
      0.031844698 = sum of:
        0.031844698 = weight(_text_:project in 553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031844698 = score(doc=553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19509704 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04622078 = queryNorm
            0.16322492 = fieldWeight in 553, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Currently, a number of efforts are being carried out to integrate collections from different institutions and containing heterogeneous material. Examples of such projects are The European Library [1] and the Memory of the Netherlands [2]. A crucial point for the success of these is the availability to provide a unified access on top of the different collections, e.g. using one single vocabulary for querying or browsing the objects they contain. This is made difficult by the fact that the objects from different collections are often described using different vocabularies - thesauri, classification schemes - and are therefore not interoperable at the semantic level. To solve this problem, one can turn to semantic links - mappings - between the elements of the different vocabularies. If one knows that a concept C from a vocabulary V is semantically equivalent to a concept to a concept D from vocabulary W, then an appropriate search engine can return all the objects that were indexed against D for a query for objects described using C. We thus have an access to other collections, using a single one vocabulary. This is however an ideal situation, and hard alignment work is required to reach it. Several projects in the past have tried to implement such a solution, like MACS [3] and Renardus [4]. They have demonstrated very interesting results, but also highlighted the difficulty of aligning manually all the different vocabularies involved in practical cases, which sometimes contain hundreds of thousands of concepts. To alleviate this problem, a number of tools have been proposed in order to provide with candidate mappings between two input vocabularies, making alignment a (semi-) automatic task. Recently, the Semantic Web community has produced a lot of these alignment tools'. Several techniques are found, depending on the material they exploit: labels of concepts, structure of vocabularies, collection objects and external knowledge sources. Throughout our presentation, we will present a concrete heterogeneity case where alignment techniques have been applied to build a (pilot) browser, developed in the context of the STITCH project [5]. This browser enables a unified access to two collections of illuminated manuscripts, using the description vocabulary used in the first collection, Mandragore [6], or the one used by the second, Iconclass [7]. In our talk, we will also make the point for using unified representations the vocabulary semantic and lexical information. Additionally to ease the use of the alignment tools that have these vocabularies as input, turning to a standard representation format helps designing applications that are more generic, like the browser we demonstrate. We give pointers to SKOS [8], an open and web-enabled format currently developed by the Semantic Web community.

0.005218565 = product of:
  0.015655695 = sum of:
    0.015655695 = product of:
      0.03131139 = sum of:
        0.03131139 = weight(_text_:22 in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03131139 = score(doc=3628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16185729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04622078 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

This paper is a pre-print version presented at the ISKO UK 2009 conference, 22-23 June, prior to peer review and editing. For published proceedings see special issue of Aslib Proceedings journal.