Search (71 results, page 1 of 4)

0.1432473 = product of:
  0.23874551 = sum of:
    0.11319384 = product of:
      0.22638768 = sum of:
        0.22638768 = weight(_text_:2c in 193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22638768 = score(doc=193,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3866719 = queryWeight, product of:
              10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.5854775 = fieldWeight in 193, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.11319384 = product of:
      0.22638768 = sum of:
        0.22638768 = weight(_text_:2c in 193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22638768 = score(doc=193,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3866719 = queryWeight, product of:
              10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.5854775 = fieldWeight in 193, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0123578375 = product of:
      0.024715675 = sum of:
        0.024715675 = weight(_text_:22 in 193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024715675 = score(doc=193,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 193, 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=193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Source

https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-bib-info/frontdoor/index/index/searchtype/authorsearch/author/%22Hubrich%2C+Jessica%22/docId/703/start/0/rows/20

0.1081676 = product of:
  0.270419 = sum of:
    0.06760475 = product of:
      0.20281425 = sum of:
        0.20281425 = weight(_text_:3a in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20281425 = score(doc=306,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3093153 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.20281425 = weight(_text_:2f in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20281425 = score(doc=306,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3093153 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036484417 = queryNorm
        0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

Vgl.: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5386707&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5386707.

0.07726257 = product of:
  0.19315642 = sum of:
    0.048289105 = product of:
      0.14486732 = sum of:
        0.14486732 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14486732 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3093153 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.14486732 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14486732 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3093153 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036484417 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.

0.022432221 = product of:
  0.05608055 = sum of:
    0.02060168 = product of:
      0.04120336 = sum of:
        0.04120336 = weight(_text_:problems in 3393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04120336 = score(doc=3393,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.27361554 = fieldWeight in 3393, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3393)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.03547887 = product of:
      0.07095774 = sum of:
        0.07095774 = weight(_text_:etc in 3393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07095774 = score(doc=3393,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.35906604 = fieldWeight in 3393, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3393)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Digital Libraries currently face the challenge of integrating many different types of research information (e.g. publications, primary data, expert's profiles, institutional profiles, project information etc.) according to their scientific users' needs. To date no general, integrated model for knowledge organization and retrieval in Digital Libraries exists. This causes the problem of structural and semantic heterogeneity due to the wide range of metadata standards, indexing vocabularies and indexing approaches used for different types of information. The research presented in this paper focuses on areas in which activities are being undertaken in the field of Digital Libraries in order to treat semantic interoperability problems. We present a model for the integrated retrieval of factual and textual data which combines multiple approaches to semantic interoperability und sets them into context. Embedded in the research cycle, traditional content indexing methods for publications meet the newer, but rarely used ontology-based approaches which seem to be better suited for representing complex information like the one contained in survey data. The benefits of our model are (1) easy re-use of available knowledge organisation systems and (2) reduced efforts for domain modelling with ontologies.

0.016769426 = product of:
  0.08384713 = sum of:
    0.08384713 = sum of:
      0.05913145 = weight(_text_:etc in 5757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05913145 = score(doc=5757,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
            0.036484417 = queryNorm
          0.2992217 = fieldWeight in 5757, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5757)
      0.024715675 = weight(_text_:22 in 5757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024715675 = score(doc=5757,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.036484417 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5757, 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=5757)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Cultural heritage institutions are publishing their digital collections over the web as LOD. This is is a new step in the patrimonialization and curatorial processes developed by such institutions. Many of these collections are thematically superimposed and complementary. Frequently, objects in these collections present culturally relevant relationships, such as a book about a painting, or a draft or sketch of a famous painting, etc. LOD technology enables such heritage records to be interlinked, achieving interoperability and adding value to digital collections, thus empowering heritage institutions. An aim of this research is characterizing such culturally relevant relationships and organizing them in a vocabulary. Use cases or examples of relationships between objects suggested by curators or mentioned in literature and in the conceptual models as FRBR/LRM, CIDOC CRM and RiC-CM, were collected and used as examples or inspiration of cultural relevant relationships. Relationships identified are collated and compared for identifying those with the same or similar meaning, synthesized and normalized. A set of thirty-three culturally relevant relationships are identified and formalized as a LOD property vocabulary to be used by digital curators to interlink digital collections. The results presented are provisional and a starting point to be discussed, tested, and enhanced.

Date

4. 3.2020 14:22:41

0.016629452 = product of:
  0.04157363 = sum of:
    0.02060168 = product of:
      0.04120336 = sum of:
        0.04120336 = weight(_text_:problems in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04120336 = score(doc=1967,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.27361554 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.020971946 = product of:
      0.041943893 = sum of:
        0.041943893 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041943893 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

0.014172435 = product of:
  0.035431087 = sum of:
    0.02060168 = product of:
      0.04120336 = sum of:
        0.04120336 = weight(_text_:problems in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04120336 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.27361554 = fieldWeight in 4820, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4820)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.014829405 = product of:
      0.02965881 = sum of:
        0.02965881 = weight(_text_:22 in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02965881 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

One of the major problems facing systems for Computer Aided Design (CAD), Architecture Engineering and Construction (AEC) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) applications today is the lack of interoperability among the various systems. When integrating software applications, substantial di culties can arise in translating information from one application to the other. In this paper, we focus on semantic di culties that arise in software integration. Applications may use di erent terminologies to describe the same domain. Even when appli-cations use the same terminology, they often associate di erent semantics with the terms. This obstructs information exchange among applications. To cir-cumvent this obstacle, we need some way of explicitly specifying the semantics for each terminology in an unambiguous fashion. Ontologies can provide such specification. It will be the task of this paper to explain what ontologies are and how they can be used to facilitate interoperability between software systems used in computer aided design, architecture engineering and construction, and geographic information processing.

Date

3.12.2016 18:39:22

0.013857874 = product of:
  0.034644686 = sum of:
    0.017168067 = product of:
      0.034336135 = sum of:
        0.034336135 = weight(_text_:problems in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034336135 = score(doc=1962,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.22801295 = fieldWeight in 1962, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1962)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.01747662 = product of:
      0.03495324 = sum of:
        0.03495324 = weight(_text_:22 in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03495324 = score(doc=1962,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1962, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1962)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article 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 article 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 Dewey Decimal Classification [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.

0.013470016 = product of:
  0.03367504 = sum of:
    0.023788773 = product of:
      0.047577545 = sum of:
        0.047577545 = weight(_text_:problems in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047577545 = score(doc=168,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.31594402 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009886269 = product of:
      0.019772539 = sum of:
        0.019772539 = weight(_text_:22 in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019772539 = score(doc=168,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Ontologies are viewed as the silver bullet for many applications, but in open or evolving systems, different parties can adopt different ontologies. This increases heterogeneity problems rather than reducing heterogeneity. This book proposes ontology matching as a solution to the problem of semantic heterogeneity, offering researchers and practitioners a uniform framework of reference to currently available work. The techniques presented apply to database schema matching, catalog integration, XML schema matching and more. Ontologies tend to be found everywhere. They are viewed as the silver bullet for many applications, such as database integration, peer-to-peer systems, e-commerce, semantic web services, or social networks. However, in open or evolving systems, such as the semantic web, different parties would, in general, adopt different ontologies. Thus, merely using ontologies, like using XML, does not reduce heterogeneity: it just raises heterogeneity problems to a higher level. Euzenat and Shvaiko's book is devoted to ontology matching as a solution to the semantic heterogeneity problem faced by computer systems. Ontology matching aims at finding correspondences between semantically related entities of different ontologies. These correspondences may stand for equivalence as well as other relations, such as consequence, subsumption, or disjointness, between ontology entities. Many different matching solutions have been proposed so far from various viewpoints, e.g., databases, information systems, artificial intelligence. With Ontology Matching, researchers and practitioners will find a reference book which presents currently available work in a uniform framework. In particular, the work and the techniques presented in this book can equally be applied to database schema matching, catalog integration, XML schema matching and other related problems. The objectives of the book include presenting (i) the state of the art and (ii) the latest research results in ontology matching by providing a detailed account of matching techniques and matching systems in a systematic way from theoretical, practical and application perspectives.

Date

20. 6.2012 19:08:22

0.011810362 = product of:
  0.029525906 = sum of:
    0.017168067 = product of:
      0.034336135 = sum of:
        0.034336135 = weight(_text_:problems in 1678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034336135 = score(doc=1678,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.22801295 = fieldWeight in 1678, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1678)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0123578375 = product of:
      0.024715675 = sum of:
        0.024715675 = weight(_text_:22 in 1678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024715675 = score(doc=1678,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1678, 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=1678)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

A case study in compatibility and heterogeneity of knowledge organization (KO) systems and processes is presented. It is based in the experience of the author in the field of information for consumer protection, a good example of the emerging transdisciplinary applied social sciences. The activities and knowledge organization problems and solutions of the Aragonian Consumers' Information and Documentation Centre are described and analyzed. Six assertions can be concluded: a) heterogeneity and compatibility are certainly an inherent problem in knowledge organization and also in practical domains; b) knowledge organization is also a social task, not only a lögical one; c) knowledge organization is affected by economical and efficiency considerations; d) knowledge organization is at the heart of Knowledge Management; e) identifying and maintaining the focus in interdisciplinary fields is a must; f the different knowledge organization tools of a institution must be considered as an integrated system, pursuing a unifying model.

Date

16. 3.2008 18:22:50

0.008278403 = product of:
  0.041392017 = sum of:
    0.041392017 = product of:
      0.082784034 = sum of:
        0.082784034 = weight(_text_:etc in 689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.082784034 = score(doc=689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.41891038 = fieldWeight in 689, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Information exchange among many sources in Internet is more autonomous, dynamic and free. The situation drive difference view of concepts among sources. For example, word 'bank' has meaning as economic institution for economy domain, but for ecology domain it will be defined as slope of river or lake. In this paper, we will evaluate latent semantic and WordNet approach to calculate semantic similarity. The evaluation will be run for some concepts from different domain with reference by expert or human. Result of the evaluation can provide a contribution for mapping of concept, query rewriting, interoperability, etc.

0.008278403 = product of:
  0.041392017 = sum of:
    0.041392017 = product of:
      0.082784034 = sum of:
        0.082784034 = weight(_text_:etc in 123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.082784034 = score(doc=123,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.41891038 = fieldWeight in 123, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=123)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In 2015, the PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC was tasked to identify and address linked data identifiers deployment in the current MARC format. By way of a pilot test, a survey, MARC Discussion papers, Proposals, etc., the Task Group initiated and introduced changes to MARC encoding. The Task Group succeeded in laying the ground work for preparing library data transition from MARC data to a linked data, RDF environment.

0.008155417 = product of:
  0.040777083 = sum of:
    0.040777083 = product of:
      0.08155417 = sum of:
        0.08155417 = weight(_text_:exercises in 5153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08155417 = score(doc=5153,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25947425 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.31430542 = fieldWeight in 5153, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5153)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This highly practical handbook teaches you how to unlock the value of your existing metadata through cleaning, reconciliation, enrichment and linking and how to streamline the process of new metadata creation. Libraries, archives and museums are facing up to the challenge of providing access to fast growing collections whilst managing cuts to budgets. Key to this is the creation, linking and publishing of good quality metadata as Linked Data that will allow their collections to be discovered, accessed and disseminated in a sustainable manner. This highly practical handbook teaches you how to unlock the value of your existing metadata through cleaning, reconciliation, enrichment and linking and how to streamline the process of new metadata creation. Metadata experts Seth van Hooland and Ruben Verborgh introduce the key concepts of metadata standards and Linked Data and how they can be practically applied to existing metadata, giving readers the tools and understanding to achieve maximum results with limited resources. Readers will learn how to critically assess and use (semi-)automated methods of managing metadata through hands-on exercises within the book and on the accompanying website. Each chapter is built around a case study from institutions around the world, demonstrating how freely available tools are being successfully used in different metadata contexts. This handbook delivers the necessary conceptual and practical understanding to empower practitioners to make the right decisions when making their organisations resources accessible on the Web. Key topics include, the value of metadata; metadata creation - architecture, data models and standards; metadata cleaning; metadata reconciliation; metadata enrichment through Linked Data and named-entity recognition; importing and exporting metadata; ensuring a sustainable publishing model. This will be an invaluable guide for metadata practitioners and researchers within all cultural heritage contexts, from library cataloguers and archivists to museum curatorial staff. It will also be of interest to students and academics within information science and digital humanities fields. IT managers with responsibility for information systems, as well as strategy heads and budget holders, at cultural heritage organisations, will find this a valuable decision-making aid.

0.0071366318 = product of:
  0.03568316 = sum of:
    0.03568316 = product of:
      0.07136632 = sum of:
        0.07136632 = weight(_text_:problems in 2740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07136632 = score(doc=2740,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.47391602 = fieldWeight in 2740, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2740)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

With a first version developed last year, the Ontology of Interoperability (OoI) aims at formally describing concepts relating to problems and solutions in the domain of interoperability. From the beginning, the OoI has its foundations in the systemic theory and addresses interoperability from the general point of view of a system, whether it is composed by other systems (systems-of-systems) or not. In this paper, we present the last OoI focusing on the systemic approach. We then integrate a classification of interoperability knowledge provided by the Framework for Enterprise Interoperability. This way, we contextualize the OoI with a specific vocabulary to the enterprise domain, where solutions to interoperability problems are characterized according to interoperability approaches defined in the ISO 14258 and both solutions and problems can be localized into enterprises levels and characterized by interoperability levels, as defined in the European Interoperability Framework.

0.007095774 = product of:
  0.03547887 = sum of:
    0.03547887 = product of:
      0.07095774 = sum of:
        0.07095774 = weight(_text_:etc in 2259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07095774 = score(doc=2259,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.35906604 = fieldWeight in 2259, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2259)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Die Entwicklungsperspektive für den Bereich wissenschaftlicher Information sind innovative, integrierende Fachportale, die in einem Wissenschaftsportal zusammengefasst werden und die allgemeinen, fachübergreifenden Zugänge der Bibliotheken mit spezifischen Fachzugängen verbinden. In dieser Struktur kann der Kunde mit qualitativ hochwertigen Such- und Selektionsinstrumenten auf wissenschaftsrelevante Informationen (Literaturnachweise, Experten und Forschungsreferenzen, Volltexte, Materialien, Daten, Fakten, Linklisten etc.) zugreifen. Sowohl theoriegeleitete Analysen und Bestandsaufnahmen der wissenschaftlichen Informationslandschaft als auch die Ergebnisse der neueren Benutzerumfragen zum Informationsverhalten und zum -bedarf von Wissenschaftlern weisen auf die Wünschbarkeit solch einer Entwicklung hin. Heute ist ein weitgehender Konsens über das anzustrebende Ziel erreicht. Die Herausforderung für die Weiterentwicklung ist somit nicht die Akzeptanz der angestrebten Zielvorstellung, sondern die Frage, wie sie zu erreichen ist. Die im Folgenden diskutierte Entwicklung von bilateralen Transferkomponenten zur Behandlung semantischer Heterogenität zwischen Dokumentensammlungen mit unterschiedlicher Inhaltserschließung zeigt für einen wesentlichen Teil der Frage nach dem »Wie« der Zielerreichung eine tragfähige Lösungsstrategie auf. Sie wird theoretisch und praktisch konkretisiert, der Entwicklungsstand beschrieben und die konkreten Einsatzmöglichkeiten werden aufgezeigt.

0.0069203894 = product of:
  0.034601945 = sum of:
    0.034601945 = product of:
      0.06920389 = sum of:
        0.06920389 = weight(_text_:22 in 8365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06920389 = score(doc=8365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 8365, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8365)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 6.2015 16:08:38

0.005931762 = product of:
  0.02965881 = sum of:
    0.02965881 = product of:
      0.05931762 = sum of:
        0.05931762 = weight(_text_:22 in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05931762 = score(doc=126,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 126, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=126)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.005931762 = product of:
  0.02965881 = sum of:
    0.02965881 = product of:
      0.05931762 = sum of:
        0.05931762 = weight(_text_:22 in 4786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05931762 = score(doc=4786,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4786, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4786)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 9.2008 19:30:41

0.0059131454 = product of:
  0.029565725 = sum of:
    0.029565725 = product of:
      0.05913145 = sum of:
        0.05913145 = weight(_text_:etc in 4847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05913145 = score(doc=4847,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.2992217 = fieldWeight in 4847, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4847)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Jede Organisation, sei es in der freien Wirtschaft oder der öffentlichen Verwaltung, nutzt heute Informationssysteme zur effizienten Abwicklung der Geschäftsprozesse. Um Kooperationen zwischen den Organisationen zu ermöglichen, steigt dabei in zunehmendem Maße die Bedeutung organisationsübergreifender und medienbruchfreier Geschäftsprozesse. Grundlage für einen solchen Datenaustausch ist ein Vorgehen, das Fehlinterpretationen und inhaltliche Missverständnisse bei der Verwendung von Begriffen, Datenstrukturen, Schreibkonventionen etc. zu vermeiden hilft und semantische Interoperabilität ermöglicht. Erst die Semantische Interoperabilität gewährleistet einen effizienten organisationsinternen Datenaustausch und eine effiziente Datenintegration mit externen Kooperationsteilnehmern. Die Arbeit an praktikablen Konzepten und Lösungen steht im Zentrum des Arbeitsgebietes »Semantic Interoperability Engineering« (SIE). In diesem Whitepaper werden dafür zentrale Begriffe und Konzepte eingeführt. Sie dienen als Basis für eine weitere Beschäftigung mit dem Thema.

0.0059131454 = product of:
  0.029565725 = sum of:
    0.029565725 = product of:
      0.05913145 = sum of:
        0.05913145 = weight(_text_:etc in 788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05913145 = score(doc=788,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.2992217 = fieldWeight in 788, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=788)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Der Begriff Ontologie stammt ursprünglich aus der Metaphysik, einem Teilbereich der Philosophie, welcher sich um die Erkenntnis der Grundstruktur und Prinzipien der Wirklichkeit bemüht. Ontologien befassen sich dabei mit der Frage, welche Dinge auf der fundamentalsten Ebene existieren, wie sich diese strukturieren lassen und in welchen Beziehungen diese zueinanderstehen. In der Informationswissenschaft hingegen werden Ontologien verwendet, um das Vokabular für die Beschreibung von Wissensbereichen zu formalisieren. Ziel ist es, dass alle Akteure, die in diesen Bereichen tätig sind, die gleichen Konzepte und Begrifflichkeiten verwenden, um eine reibungslose Zusammenarbeit ohne Missverständnisse zu ermöglichen. So definierte zum Beispiel die Dublin Core Metadaten Initiative 15 Kernelemente, die zur Beschreibung von elektronischen Ressourcen und Medien verwendet werden können. Jedes Element wird durch eine eindeutige Bezeichnung (zum Beispiel identifier) und eine zugehörige Konzeption, welche die Bedeutung dieser Bezeichnung möglichst exakt festlegt, beschrieben. Ein Identifier muss zum Beispiel laut der Dublin Core Ontologie ein Dokument basierend auf einem zugehörigen Katalog eindeutig identifizieren. Je nach Katalog kämen daher zum Beispiel eine ISBN (Katalog von Büchern), ISSN (Katalog von Zeitschriften), URL (Web), DOI (Publikationsdatenbank) etc. als Identifier in Frage.