Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.09923969 = product of:
  0.19847938 = sum of:
    0.13840169 = weight(_text_:objects in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13840169 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
    0.0600777 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0600777 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22182742 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2654, 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=2654)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Faceted Knowledge Representation provides a formalism for implementing knowledge systems. The basic notions of faceted knowledge representation are "unit", "relation", "facet" and "interpretation". Units are atomic elements and can be abstract elements or refer to external objects in an application. Relations are sequences or matrices of 0 and 1's (binary matrices). Facets are relational structures that combine units and relations. Each facet represents an aspect or viewpoint of a knowledge system. Interpretations are mappings that can be used to translate between different representations. This paper introduces the basic notions of faceted knowledge representation. The formalism is applied here to an abstract modeling of a faceted thesaurus as used in information retrieval.

Date

22. 1.2016 17:30:31

0.04893239 = product of:
  0.19572955 = sum of:
    0.19572955 = weight(_text_:objects in 1260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19572955 = score(doc=1260,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.5813359 = fieldWeight in 1260, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1260)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Flexible organization of information is one of the key design challenges in any digital library. For the past year, we have been working with members of the National Digital Library Project (NDLP) at the Library of Congress to build an experimental system to organize and store library collections. This is a report on the work. In particular, we describe how a few technical building blocks are used to organize the material in collections, such as the NDLP's, and how these methods fit into a general distributed computing framework. The technical building blocks are part of a framework that evolved as part of the Computer Science Technical Reports Project (CSTR). This framework is described in the paper, "A Framework for Distributed Digital Object Services", by Robert Kahn and Robert Wilensky (1995). The main building blocks are: "digital objects", which are used to manage digital material in a networked environment; "handles", which identify digital objects and other network resources; and "repositories", in which digital objects are stored. These concepts are amplified in "Key Concepts in the Architecture of the Digital Library", by William Y. Arms (1995). In summer 1995, after earlier experimental development, work began on the implementation of a full digital library system based on this framework. In addition to Kahn/Wilensky and Arms, several working papers further elaborate on the design concepts. A paper by Carl Lagoze and David Ely, "Implementation Issues in an Open Architectural Framework for Digital Object Services", delves into some of the repository concepts. The initial repository implementation was based on a paper by Carl Lagoze, Robert McGrath, Ed Overly and Nancy Yeager, "A Design for Inter-Operable Secure Object Stores (ISOS)". Work on the handle system, which began in 1992, is described in a series of papers that can be found on the Handle Home Page. The National Digital Library Program (NDLP) at the Library of Congress is a large scale project to convert historic collections to digital form and make them widely available over the Internet. The program is described in two articles by Caroline R. Arms, "Historical Collections for the National Digital Library". The NDLP itself draws on experience gained through the earlier American Memory Program. Based on this work, we have built a pilot system that demonstrates how digital objects can be used to organize complex materials, such as those found in the NDLP. The pilot was demonstrated to members of the library in July 1996. The pilot system includes the handle system for identifying digital objects, a pilot repository to store them, and two user interfaces: one designed for librarians to manage digital objects in the repository, the other for library patrons to access the materials stored in the repository. Materials from the NDLP's Coolidge Consumerism compilation have been deposited into the pilot repository. They include a variety of photographs and texts, converted to digital form. The pilot demonstrates the use of handles for identifying such material, the use of meta-objects for managing sets of digital objects, and the choice of metadata. We are now implementing an enhanced prototype system for completion in early 1997.

0.048430502 = product of:
  0.19372201 = sum of:
    0.19372201 = weight(_text_:objects in 1248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19372201 = score(doc=1248,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.5753733 = fieldWeight in 1248, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1248)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

For several years the Digital Library Research Group at Cornell University and the Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI) have been engaged in research focused on the design and development of infrastructures for open architecture, confederated digital libraries. The goal of this effort is to achieve interoperability and extensibility of digital library systems through the definition of key digital library services and their open interfaces, allowing flexible interaction of existing services and augmentation of the infrastructure with new services. Some aspects of this research have included the development and deployment of the Dienst software, the Handle System®, and the architecture of digital objects and repositories. In this paper, we describe the joint effort by Cornell and CNRI to prototype a rich and deployable architecture for interoperable digital objects and repositories. This effort has challenged us to move theories of interoperability closer to practice. The Cornell/CNRI collaboration builds on two existing projects focusing on the development of interoperable digital libraries. Details relating to the technology of these projects are described elsewhere. Both projects were strongly influenced by the fundamental abstractions of repositories and digital objects as articulated by Kahn and Wilensky in A Framework for Distributed Digital Object Services. Furthermore, both programs were influenced by the container architecture described in the Warwick Framework, and by the notions of distributed dynamic objects presented by Lagoze and Daniel in their Distributed Active Relationship work. With these common roots, one would expect that the CNRI and Cornell repositories would be at least theoretically interoperable. However, the actual test would be the extent to which our independently developed repositories were practically interoperable. This paper focuses on the definition of interoperability in the joint Cornell/CNRI work and the set of experiments conducted to formally test it. Our motivation for this work is the eventual deployment of formally tested reference implementations of the repository architecture for experimentation and development by fellow digital library researchers. In Section 2, we summarize the digital object and repository approach that was the focus of our interoperability experiments. In Section 3, we describe the set of experiments that progressively tested interoperability at increasing levels of functionality. In Section 4, we discuss general conclusions, and in Section 5, we give a preview of our future work, including our plans to evolve our experimentation to the point of defining a set of formal metrics for measuring interoperability for repositories and digital objects. This is still a work in progress that is expected to undergo additional refinements during its development.

0.03460042 = product of:
  0.13840169 = sum of:
    0.13840169 = weight(_text_:objects in 1264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13840169 = score(doc=1264,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 1264, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1264)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Defining metadata as "data about data" provokes more questions than it answers. What are the forms of the data and metadata? Can we be more specific about the manner in which the metadata is "about" the data? Are data and metadata distinguished only in the context of their relationship? Is the nature of the relationship between the datasets declarative or procedural? Can the metadata itself be described by other data? Over the past several years, we have been engaged in a number of efforts examining the role, format, composition, and architecture of metadata for networked resources. During this time, we have noticed the tendency to be led astray by comfortable, but somewhat inappropriate, models in the non-digital information environment. Rather than pursuing familiar models, there is the need for a new model that fully exploits the unique combination of computation and connectivity that characterizes the digital library. In this paper, we describe an extension of the Warwick Framework that we call Distributed Active Relationships (DARs). DARs provide a powerful model for representing data and metadata in digital library objects. They explicitly express the relationships between networked resources, and even allow those relationships to be dynamically downloadable and executable. The DAR model is based on the following principles, which our examination of the "data about data" definition has led us to regard as axiomatic: * There is no essential distinction between data and metadata. We can only make such a distinction in terms of a particular "about" relationship. As a result, what is metadata in the context of one "about" relationship may be data in another. * There is no single "about" relationship. There are many different and important relationships between data resources. * Resources can be related without regard for their location. The connectivity in networked information architectures makes it possible to have data in one repository describe data in another repository. * The computational power of the networked information environment makes it possible to consider active or dynamic relationships between data sets. This adds considerable power to the "data about data" definition. First, data about another data set may not physically exist, but may be automatically derived. Second, the "about" relationship may be an executable object -- in a sense interpretable metadata. As will be shown, this provides useful mechanisms for handling complex metadata problems such as rights management of digital objects. The remainder of this paper describes the development and consequences of the DAR model. Section 2 reviews the Warwick Framework, which is the basis for the model described in this paper. Section 3 examines the concept of the Warwick Framework Catalog, which provides a mechanism for expressing the relationships between the packages in a Warwick Framework container. With that background established, section 4 generalizes the Warwick Framework by removing the restriction that it only contains "metadata". This allows us to consider digital library objects that are aggregations of (possibly distributed) data sets, with the relationships between the data sets expressed using a Warwick Framework Catalog. Section 5 further extends the model by describing Distributed Active Relationships (DARs). DARs are the explicit relationships that have the potential to be executable, as alluded to earlier. Finally, section 6 describes two possible implementations of these concepts.

0.03003885 = product of:
  0.1201554 = sum of:
    0.1201554 = weight(_text_:22 in 6021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1201554 = score(doc=6021,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22182742 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6021, 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=6021)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Ariadne. 1999, no.22

0.029657505 = product of:
  0.11863002 = sum of:
    0.11863002 = weight(_text_:objects in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11863002 = score(doc=1259,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 1259, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1259)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Film, videotape and multimedia archive systems must address the issues of editing, authoring and searching at the media (i.e. tape) or sub media (i.e. scene) level in addition to the traditional inventory management capabilities associated with the physical media. This paper describes a prototype of a database design for the storage, search and retrieval of multimedia and its related information. It also provides a process by which legacy data can be imported to this schema. The Continuous Media Index, or Comix system is the name of the prototype. An implementation of such a digital library solution incorporates multimedia objects, hierarchical relationships and timecode in addition to traditional attribute data. Present video and multimedia archive systems are easily migrated to this architecture. Comix was implemented for a videotape archiving system. It was written for, and implemented using IBM Digital Library version 1.0. A derivative of Comix is currently in development for customer specific applications. Principles of the Comix design as well as the importation methods are not specific to the underlying systems used.

0.01977167 = product of:
  0.07908668 = sum of:
    0.07908668 = weight(_text_:objects in 1240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07908668 = score(doc=1240,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.23489517 = fieldWeight in 1240, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1240)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Alexandria Digital Library (ADL) Project has developed a content standard for gazetteer objects and a hierarchical type scheme for geographic features. Both of these developments are based on ADL experience with an earlier gazetteer component for the Library, based on two gazetteers maintained by the U.S. federal government. We define the minimum components of a gazetteer entry as (1) a geographic name, (2) a geographic location represented by coordinates, and (3) a type designation. With these attributes, a gazetteer can function as a tool for indirect spatial location identification through names and types. The ADL Gazetteer Content Standard supports contribution and sharing of gazetteer entries with rich descriptions beyond the minimum requirements. This paper describes the content standard, the feature type thesaurus, and the implementation and research issues. A gazetteer is list of geographic names, together with their geographic locations and other descriptive information. A geographic name is a proper name for a geographic place and feature, such as Santa Barbara County, Mount Washington, St. Francis Hospital, and Southern California. There are many types of printed gazetteers. For example, the New York Times Atlas has a gazetteer section that can be used to look up a geographic name and find the page(s) and grid reference(s) where the corresponding feature is shown. Some gazetteers provide information about places and features; for example, a history of the locale, population data, physical data such as elevation, or the pronunciation of the name. Some lists of geographic names are available as hierarchical term sets (thesauri) designed for information retreival; these are used to describe bibliographic or museum materials. Examples include the authority files of the U.S. Library of Congress and the GeoRef Thesaurus produced by the American Geological Institute. The Getty Museum has recently made their Thesaurus of Geographic Names available online. This is a major project to develop a controlled vocabulary of current and historical names to describe (i.e., catalog) art and architecture literature. U.S. federal government mapping agencies maintain gazetteers containing the official names of places and/or the names that appear on map series. Examples include the U.S. Geological Survey's Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency's Geographic Names Processing System (GNPS). Both of these are maintained in cooperation with the U.S. Board of Geographic Names (BGN). Many other examples could be cited -- for local areas, for other countries, and for special purposes. There is remarkable diversity in approaches to the description of geographic places and no standardization beyond authoritative sources for the geographic names themselves.

0.012873792 = product of:
  0.05149517 = sum of:
    0.05149517 = weight(_text_:22 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05149517 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22182742 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2655, 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=2655)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2016 17:30:31