Search (46 results, page 3 of 3)

0.0013180295 = product of:
  0.010544236 = sum of:
    0.010544236 = product of:
      0.021088472 = sum of:
        0.021088472 = weight(_text_:system in 2113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021088472 = score(doc=2113,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 2113, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2113)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.0013180295 = product of:
  0.010544236 = sum of:
    0.010544236 = product of:
      0.021088472 = sum of:
        0.021088472 = weight(_text_:system in 5959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021088472 = score(doc=5959,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 5959, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5959)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The labor market is a system that is complex and difficult to manage. To overcome this challenge, the European Union has launched the ESCO project which is a language that aims to describe this labor market. In order to support the spread of this project, its dataset was presented as linked open data (LOD). Since LOD is usable and reusable, a set of conditions have to be met. First, LOD must be feasible and high quality. In addition, it must provide the user with the right answers, and it has to be built according to a clear and correct structure. This study investigates the LOD of ESCO, focusing on data quality and data structure. The former is evaluated through applying a set of SPARQL queries. This provides solutions to improve its quality via a set of rules built in first order logic. This process was conducted based on a new proposed ESCO ontology.

0.0010983578 = product of:
  0.008786863 = sum of:
    0.008786863 = product of:
      0.017573725 = sum of:
        0.017573725 = weight(_text_:system in 3308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017573725 = score(doc=3308,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 3308, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3308)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Das Problem der mehrsprachigen Suche gewinnt in der letzten Zeit immer mehr an Bedeutung, da viele nützliche Fachinformationen in der Welt in verschiedenen Sprachen publiziert werden. RSWBPlus ist eine bibliographische Datenbank zum Nachweis der Fachliteratur im Bereich Planen und Bauen, welche deutsch- und englischsprachige Metadaten-Einträge enthält. Bis vor Kurzem war es problematisch Einträge zu finden, deren Sprache sich von der Anfragesprache unterschied. Zum Beispiel fand man auf deutschsprachige Anfragen nur deutschsprachige Einträge, obwohl die Datenbank auch potenziell nützliche englischsprachige Einträge enthielt. Um das Problem zu lösen, wurde nach einer Untersuchung bestehender Ansätze, die RSWBPlus weiterentwickelt, um eine mehrsprachige (sprachübergreifende) Suche zu unterstützen, welche unter Einbeziehung eines zweisprachigen begriffbasierten Thesaurus erfolgt. Der Thesaurus wurde aus bereits bestehenden Thesauri automatisch gebildet. Die Einträge der Quell-Thesauri wurden in SKOS-Format (Simple Knowledge Organisation System) umgewandelt, automatisch miteinander vereinigt und schließlich in einen Ziel-Thesaurus eingespielt, der ebenfalls in SKOS geführt wird. Für den Zugriff zum Ziel-Thesaurus werden Apache Jena und MS SQL Server verwendet. Bei der mehrsprachigen Suche werden Terme der Anfrage durch entsprechende Übersetzungen und Synonyme in Deutsch und Englisch erweitert. Die Erweiterung der Suchterme kann sowohl in der Laufzeit, als auch halbautomatisch erfolgen. Das verbesserte Recherchesystem kann insbesondere deutschsprachigen Benutzern helfen, relevante englischsprachige Einträge zu finden. Die Verwendung vom SKOS erhöht die Interoperabilität der Thesauri, vereinfacht das Bilden des Ziel-Thesaurus und den Zugriff zu seinen Einträgen.

0.001013147 = product of:
  0.008105176 = sum of:
    0.008105176 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008105176 = score(doc=3370,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.08355226 = fieldWeight in 3370, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3370)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Content

Another challenge appears when, e.g., mapping Dewey class 890 Literatures of other specific languages and language families, which does not make sense in UDC in which all languages and literatures have equal status. Standard UDC schedules do not have a selection of preferred literatures and other literatures. In principle, UDC does not allow classes entitled 'others' which do not have defined semantic content. If entities are subdivided and there is no provision for an item outside the listed subclasses then this item is subsumed to a top class or a broader class where all unspecifiied or general members of that class may be expected. If specification is needed this can be divised by adding an alphabetical extension to the broader class. Here we have to find and list in the UDC Summary all literatures that are 'unpreferred' i.e. lumped in the 890 classes and map them again as many-to-one specific-to-broader match. The example below illustrates another interesting case. Classes Dewey 061 and UDC 06 cover roughy the same semantic field but in the subdivision the Dewey Summaries lists a combination of subject and place and as an enumerative classification, provides ready made numbers for combinations of place that are most common in an average (American?) library. This is a frequent approach in the schemes created with the physical book arrangement, i.e. library schelves, in mind. UDC, designed as an indexing language for information retrieval, keeps subject and place in separate tables and allows for any concept of place such as, e.g. (7) North America to be used in combination with any subject as these may coincide in documents. Thus combinations such as Newspapers in North America, or Organizations in North America would not be offered as ready made combinations. There is no selection of 'preferred' or 'most needed countries' or languages or cultures in the standard UDC edition: <Tabelle>

9.3198754E-4 = product of:
  0.0074559003 = sum of:
    0.0074559003 = product of:
      0.014911801 = sum of:
        0.014911801 = weight(_text_:system in 2127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014911801 = score(doc=2127,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.14763528 = fieldWeight in 2127, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2127)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

8.786863E-4 = product of:
  0.0070294905 = sum of:
    0.0070294905 = product of:
      0.014058981 = sum of:
        0.014058981 = weight(_text_:system in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014058981 = score(doc=3965,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.