Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.08245729 = product of:
  0.16491458 = sum of:
    0.13678056 = weight(_text_:digital in 468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13678056 = score(doc=468,freq=56.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.6918357 = fieldWeight in 468, product of:
          7.483315 = tf(freq=56.0), with freq of:
            56.0 = termFreq=56.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=468)
    0.028134026 = weight(_text_:library in 468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028134026 = score(doc=468,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21347894 = fieldWeight in 468, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=468)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Archival Information Systems (AIS) are becoming increasingly important. For decades, the amount of content created digitally is growing and its complete life cycle nowadays tends to remain digital. A selection of this content is expected to be of value for the future and can thus be considered being part of our cultural heritage. However, digital content poses many challenges for long-term or indefinite preservation, e.g. digital publications become increasingly complex by the embedding of different kinds of multimedia, data in arbitrary formats and software. As soon as these digital publications become obsolete, but are still deemed to be of value in the future, they have to be transferred smoothly into appropriate AIS where they need to be kept accessible even through changing technologies. The successful previous SDA workshop in 2011 showed: Both, the library and the archiving community have made valuable contributions to the management of huge amounts of knowledge and data. However, both are approaching this topic from different views which shall be brought together to cross-fertilize each other. There are promising combinations of pertinence and provenance models since those are traditionally the prevailing knowledge organization principles of the library and archiving community, respectively. Another scientific discipline providing promising technical solutions for knowledge representation and knowledge management is semantic technologies, which is supported by appropriate W3C recommendations and a large user community. At the forefront of making the semantic web a mature and applicable reality is the linked data initiative, which already has started to be adopted by the library community. It can be expected that using semantic (web) technologies in general and linked data in particular can mature the area of digital archiving as well as technologically tighten the natural bond between digital libraries and digital archives. Semantic representations of contextual knowledge about cultural heritage objects will enhance organization and access of data and knowledge. In order to achieve a comprehensive investigation, the information seeking and document triage behaviors of users (an area also classified under the field of Human Computer Interaction) will also be included in the research.
One of the major challenges of digital archiving is how to deal with changing technologies and changing user communities. On the one hand software, hardware and (multimedia) data formats that become obsolete and are not supported anymore still need to be kept accessible. On the other hand changing user communities necessitate technical means to formalize, detect and measure knowledge evolution. Furthermore, digital archival records are usually not deleted from the AIS and therefore, the amount of digitally archived (multimedia) content can be expected to grow rapidly. Therefore, efficient storage management solutions geared to the fact that cultural heritage is not as frequently accessed like up-to-date content residing in a digital library are required. Software and hardware needs to be tightly connected based on sophisticated knowledge representation and management models in order to face that challenge. In line with the above, contributions to the workshop should focus on, but are not limited to:
Semantic search & semantic information retrieval in digital archives and digital libraries Semantic multimedia archives Ontologies & linked data for digital archives and digital libraries Ontologies & linked data for multimedia archives Implementations and evaluations of semantic digital archives Visualization and exploration of digital content User interfaces for semantic digital libraries User interfaces for intelligent multimedia information retrieval User studies focusing on end-user needs and information seeking behavior of end-users Theoretical and practical archiving frameworks using Semantic (Web) technologies Logical theories for digital archives Semantic (Web) services implementing the OAIS standard Semantic or logical provenance models for digital archives or digital libraries Information integration/semantic ingest (e.g. from digital libraries) Trust for ingest and data security/integrity check for long-term storage of archival records Semantic extensions of emulation/virtualization methodologies tailored for digital archives Semantic long-term storage and hardware organization tailored for AIS Migration strategies based on Semantic (Web) technologies Knowledge evolution We expect new insights and results for sustainable technical solutions for digital archiving using knowledge management techniques based on semantic technologies. The workshop emphasizes interdisciplinarity and aims at an audience consisting of scientists and scholars from the digital library, digital archiving, multimedia technology and semantic web community, the information and library sciences, as well as, from the social sciences and (digital) humanities, in particular people working on the mentioned topics. We encourage end-users, practitioners and policy-makers from cultural heritage institutions to participate as well.

0.05135564 = product of:
  0.10271128 = sum of:
    0.073112294 = weight(_text_:digital in 476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073112294 = score(doc=476,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.36980176 = fieldWeight in 476, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=476)
    0.029598987 = product of:
      0.059197973 = sum of:
        0.059197973 = weight(_text_:project in 476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059197973 = score(doc=476,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 476, 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=476)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Although quite a number of RDF triple store benchmarks have already been conducted and published, it appears to be not that easy to find the right storage solution for your particular Semantic Web project. A basic reason is the lack of comprehensive performance tests with real-world data. Confronted with this problem, we setup and ran our own tests with a selection of four up-to-date triple store implementations - and came to interesting findings. In this paper, we briefly present the benchmark setup including the store configuration, the datasets, and the test queries. Based on a set of metrics, our results demonstrate the importance of real-world datasets in identifying anomalies or di?erences in reasoning. Finally, we must state that it is indeed difficult to give a general recommendation as no store wins in every field.

Source

Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Semantic Digital Archives held in conjunction with the 16th Int. Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (TPDL) on September 27, 2012 in Paphos, Cyprus [http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-912/proceedings.pdf]. Eds.: A. Mitschik et al

0.042796366 = product of:
  0.08559273 = sum of:
    0.060926907 = weight(_text_:digital in 467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060926907 = score(doc=467,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 467, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=467)
    0.024665821 = product of:
      0.049331643 = sum of:
        0.049331643 = weight(_text_:project in 467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049331643 = score(doc=467,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23317845 = fieldWeight in 467, 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=467)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The CIDOC CRM provides an ontology for describing entities, properties and relationships appearing in cultural heritage (CH) documentation, history and archeology. CRM promotes shared understanding by providing an extensible semantic framework that any CH information can be mapped to. CRM data is usually represented in semantic web format (RDF) and comprises complex graphs of nodes and properties. An important question is how a user can search through such complex graphs, since the number of possible combinations is staggering. One approach "compresses" the semantic network by mapping many CRM entity classes to a few "Fundamental Concepts" (FC), and mapping whole networks of CRM properties to fewer "Fundamental Relations" (FR). These FC and FRs serve as a "search index" over the CRM semantic web and allow the user to use a simpler query vocabulary. We describe an implementation of CRM FR Search based on OWLIM Rules, done as part of the ResearchSpace (RS) project. We describe the technical details, problems and difficulties encountered, benefits and disadvantages of using OWLIM rules, and preliminary performance results. We provide implementation experience that can be valuable for further implementation, definition and maintenance of CRM FRs.

Source

Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Semantic Digital Archives held in conjunction with the 16th Int. Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (TPDL) on September 27, 2012 in Paphos, Cyprus [http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-912/proceedings.pdf]. Eds.: A. Mitschik et al

0.040034845 = product of:
  0.08006969 = sum of:
    0.060926907 = weight(_text_:digital in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060926907 = score(doc=472,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 472, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=472)
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=472,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 472, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=472)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The following paper deals with an automatic text classification method which does not require training documents. For this method the German Subject Heading Authority File (SWD), provided by the linked data service of the German National Library is used. Recently the SWD was enriched with notations of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). In consequence it became possible to utilize the subject headings as textual representations for the notations of the DDC. Basically, we we derive the classification of a text from the classification of the words in the text given by the thesaurus. The method was tested by classifying 3826 OAI-Records from 7 different repositories. Mean reciprocal rank and recall were chosen as evaluation measure. Direct comparison to a machine learning method has shown that this method is definitely competitive. Thus we can conclude that the enriched version of the SWD provides high quality information with a broad coverage for classification of German scientific articles.

Source

Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Semantic Digital Archives held in conjunction with the 16th Int. Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (TPDL) on September 27, 2012 in Paphos, Cyprus [http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-912/proceedings.pdf]. Eds.: A. Mitschik et al

0.028900167 = product of:
  0.11560067 = sum of:
    0.11560067 = weight(_text_:digital in 469) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11560067 = score(doc=469,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.58470786 = fieldWeight in 469, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=469)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Current digital preservation is strongly biased towards data objects: digital files of document-style objects, or encapsulated and largely self-contained objects. To provide authenticity and provenance information, comprehensive metadata models are deployed to document information on an object's context. Yet, we claim that simply documenting an objects context may not be sufficient to ensure proper provenance and to fulfill the stated preservation goals. Specifically in e-Science and business settings, capturing, documenting and preserving entire processes may be necessary to meet the preservation goals. We thus present an approach for capturing, documenting and preserving processes, and means to assess their authenticity upon re-execution. We will discuss options as well as limitations and open challenges to achieve sound preservation, speci?cally within scientific processes.

Source

Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Semantic Digital Archives held in conjunction with the 16th Int. Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (TPDL) on September 27, 2012 in Paphos, Cyprus [http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-912/proceedings.pdf]. Eds.: A. Mitschik et al

0.025849098 = product of:
  0.10339639 = sum of:
    0.10339639 = weight(_text_:digital in 471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10339639 = score(doc=471,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.52297866 = fieldWeight in 471, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=471)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The paper summarizes the results of an on-line survey which was executed 2010 in german archives of all branches. The survey focused on metadata and used metadata standards for the annotation of audiovisual media like pictures, audio and video files (analog and digital). The findings motivate the question whether archives are able to collaborate in projects like europeana if they do not use accepted standards for their orientation. Archives need more resources and archival staff need more training to execute more complex tasks in an digital and semantic surrounding.

Source

Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Semantic Digital Archives held in conjunction with the 16th Int. Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (TPDL) on September 27, 2012 in Paphos, Cyprus [http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-912/proceedings.pdf]. Eds.: A. Mitschik et al

0.01865498 = product of:
  0.07461992 = sum of:
    0.07461992 = weight(_text_:digital in 473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07461992 = score(doc=473,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.37742734 = fieldWeight in 473, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=473)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Semantic Digital Archives held in conjunction with the 16th Int. Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (TPDL) on September 27, 2012 in Paphos, Cyprus [http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-912/proceedings.pdf]. Eds.: A. Mitschik et al

0.015231727 = product of:
  0.060926907 = sum of:
    0.060926907 = weight(_text_:digital in 470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060926907 = score(doc=470,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 470, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=470)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Semantic Digital Archives held in conjunction with the 16th Int. Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (TPDL) on September 27, 2012 in Paphos, Cyprus [http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-912/proceedings.pdf]. Eds.: A. Mitschik et al

0.015231727 = product of:
  0.060926907 = sum of:
    0.060926907 = weight(_text_:digital in 474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060926907 = score(doc=474,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 474, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=474)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Semantic Digital Archives held in conjunction with the 16th Int. Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (TPDL) on September 27, 2012 in Paphos, Cyprus [http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-912/proceedings.pdf]. Eds.: A. Mitschik et al

0.015231727 = product of:
  0.060926907 = sum of:
    0.060926907 = weight(_text_:digital in 475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060926907 = score(doc=475,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 475, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=475)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Semantic Digital Archives held in conjunction with the 16th Int. Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (TPDL) on September 27, 2012 in Paphos, Cyprus [http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-912/proceedings.pdf]. Eds.: A. Mitschik et al

0.011192988 = product of:
  0.04477195 = sum of:
    0.04477195 = weight(_text_:digital in 3716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04477195 = score(doc=3716,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2264564 = fieldWeight in 3716, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3716)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Vorwort Stellen Sie sich vor: Wir befinden uns im Jahre 2030 irgendwo in Deutschland. Irgendwo? Nein, bei Ihnen in der guten Stube, wo Sie Ihren Enkelkindern stolz von Ihrer Weltumsegelung aus dem Jahr 2010 berichten. Untermalen möchten Sie Ihre Geschichte gerne mit anschaulichem Bildmaterial und zeitgenössischer Musik. Diese hatte damals wesentlich zur Mythen- und Legendenbildung im Freundeskreis beigetragen, seitdem genießen Sie den Ruf eines unerschrockenen Helden. Nun ist es an der Zeit, diese kleine Geschichte lebendig zu halten und sie der nächsten Generation, nämlich Ihren Enkelkindern, weiterzugeben. Doch Ihr GODD (Global Omnipresent Digital Device) weigert sich, die aufwändig erstellte Videoschau überhaupt zu lesen. Ganz im Gegenteil, Ihnen wird lapidar mitgeteilt, dass es sich um veraltete Technik handelt, die nicht länger unterstützt wird. Sie möchten sich bitte an einen "Datenarchäologen" Ihres Vertrauens wenden. Aber was ist nun eigentlich ein "Datenarchäologe"? Ein Datenarchäologe stellt nicht mehr lesbare Daten wieder her, um sie wieder nutzbar zu machen. Er - oder sie - kommt zum Einsatz, wenn die Havarie schon erfolgt ist. Doch soweit soll es nicht kommen. Deshalb benötigt man Experten wie den "Digital Curator" oder den "Digital Preservation Specialist", der dafür sorgt, dass bereits bei der Entstehung digitaler Daten perspektivisch ihre langfristige Erhaltung berücksichtigt wird. Er - oder sie - ist in der Lage eine Institution bei der Entwicklung ihrer Langzeitarchivierungsstrategie für die erzeugten Daten zu unterstützen oder Entwicklungen in einem vertrauenswürdigen digitalen Langzeitarchivsystem zu planen und durchzuführen.

0.0086163655 = product of:
  0.034465462 = sum of:
    0.034465462 = weight(_text_:digital in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034465462 = score(doc=3312,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17432621 = fieldWeight in 3312, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3312)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

If you are an academic researcher but did not earn (yet) your Nobel prize or your retirement, it is unlikely you never heard about research metrics. These metrics aim at quantifying various aspects of the research process, at the level of individual researchers (e.g. h-index, altmetrics), scientific journals (e.g. impact factors) or entire universities/ countries (e.g. rankings). Although such "measurements" have existed in a simple form for a long time, their widespread calculation was enabled by the advent of the digital era (large amount of data available worldwide in a computer-compatible format). And in this new era, what becomes technically possible will be done, and what is done and appears to simplify our lives will be used. As a result, a rapidly growing number of statistics-based numerical indices are nowadays fed into decisionmaking processes. This is true in nearly all aspects of society (politics, economy, education and private life), and in particular in research, where metrics play an increasingly important role in determining positions, funding, awards, research programs, career choices, reputations, etc.

0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=482,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 482, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=482)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Schriften des Forschungszentrums Jülich: Reihe Bibliothek / Library; 21

0.0042442293 = product of:
  0.016976917 = sum of:
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 1648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=1648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1648, 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=1648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

27. 1.2015 11:48:22