Search (375 results, page 1 of 19)

0.3735211 = product of:
  0.7470422 = sum of:
    0.10672031 = product of:
      0.32016093 = sum of:
        0.32016093 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.32016093 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34179783 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.32016093 = weight(_text_:2f in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.32016093 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34179783 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
    0.32016093 = weight(_text_:2f in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.32016093 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34179783 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.29881686 = product of:
  0.5976337 = sum of:
    0.08537625 = product of:
      0.25612873 = sum of:
        0.25612873 = weight(_text_:3a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25612873 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34179783 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = queryNorm
            0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.25612873 = weight(_text_:2f in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25612873 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34179783 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
    0.25612873 = weight(_text_:2f in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25612873 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34179783 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Ftannerlectures.utah.edu%2F_documents%2Fa-to-z%2Fp%2Fpopper80.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3f4QRTEH-OEBmoYr2J_c7H

0.18676054 = product of:
  0.3735211 = sum of:
    0.053360157 = product of:
      0.16008046 = sum of:
        0.16008046 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16008046 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34179783 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, 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=4388)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.16008046 = weight(_text_:2f in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16008046 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34179783 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, 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=4388)
    0.16008046 = weight(_text_:2f in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16008046 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34179783 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, 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=4388)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Footnote

Vgl. unter: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizweHljdbcAhVS16QKHXcFD9QQFjABegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F271200105_Die_Autonomie_des_Menschen_und_der_Maschine_-_gegenwartige_Definitionen_von_Autonomie_zwischen_philosophischem_Hintergrund_und_technologischer_Umsetzbarkeit_Redigierte_Version_der_Magisterarbeit_Karls&usg=AOvVaw06orrdJmFF2xbCCp_hL26q.

0.07514214 = product of:
  0.2254264 = sum of:
    0.038455237 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038455237 = score(doc=5032,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 5032, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5032)
    0.18697117 = weight(_text_:europe in 5032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18697117 = score(doc=5032,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24556698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.7613856 = fieldWeight in 5032, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5032)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This paper introduces to the new Internet service The European Library, provided by the Conference of European National Librarians (CENL), and gives an overview of activities in Europe for multilingual library services, developed and tested in various projects: TEL-ME-MOR, MACS (Multilingual Access to Subjects), MSAC (Multilingual Subject Access to Catalogues of National Libraries), Crisscross, and VIAF (Virtual International Authority File).

0.05211036 = product of:
  0.10422072 = sum of:
    0.02719196 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02719196 = score(doc=3608,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.2053159 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
    0.066104285 = weight(_text_:europe in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066104285 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24556698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.26919046 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
    0.01092447 = product of:
      0.02184894 = sum of:
        0.02184894 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02184894 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14117907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, 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=3608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

You were going to get one-click access to the full text of nearly every book that's ever been published. Books still in print you'd have to pay for, but everything else-a collection slated to grow larger than the holdings at the Library of Congress, Harvard, the University of Michigan, at any of the great national libraries of Europe-would have been available for free at terminals that were going to be placed in every local library that wanted one. At the terminal you were going to be able to search tens of millions of books and read every page of any book you found. You'd be able to highlight passages and make annotations and share them; for the first time, you'd be able to pinpoint an idea somewhere inside the vastness of the printed record, and send somebody straight to it with a link. Books would become as instantly available, searchable, copy-pasteable-as alive in the digital world-as web pages. It was to be the realization of a long-held dream. "The universal library has been talked about for millennia," Richard Ovenden, the head of Oxford's Bodleian Libraries, has said. "It was possible to think in the Renaissance that you might be able to amass the whole of published knowledge in a single room or a single institution." In the spring of 2011, it seemed we'd amassed it in a terminal small enough to fit on a desk. "This is a watershed event and can serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of education, research, and intellectual life," one eager observer wrote at the time. On March 22 of that year, however, the legal agreement that would have unlocked a century's worth of books and peppered the country with access terminals to a universal library was rejected under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. When the library at Alexandria burned it was said to be an "international catastrophe." When the most significant humanities project of our time was dismantled in court, the scholars, archivists, and librarians who'd had a hand in its undoing breathed a sigh of relief, for they believed, at the time, that they had narrowly averted disaster.

0.03909502 = product of:
  0.23457012 = sum of:
    0.23457012 = product of:
      0.46914023 = sum of:
        0.46914023 = weight(_text_:congresses in 5393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.46914023 = score(doc=5393,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.32709694 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.113368 = idf(docFreq=35, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = queryNorm
            1.4342544 = fieldWeight in 5393, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              8.113368 = idf(docFreq=35, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5393)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

LCSH

Information storage and retrieval systems / Research / Congresses
Information retrieval / Research / Congresses

Subject

Information storage and retrieval systems / Research / Congresses
Information retrieval / Research / Congresses

0.038873434 = product of:
  0.1166203 = sum of:
    0.033989947 = weight(_text_:libraries in 130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033989947 = score(doc=130,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.25664487 = fieldWeight in 130, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=130)
    0.08263036 = weight(_text_:europe in 130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08263036 = score(doc=130,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24556698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.33648807 = fieldWeight in 130, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=130)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

A large on-going activity for digitization, dissemination and preservation of cultural heritage is taking place in Europe, United States and the world, which involves all types of cultural institutions, i.e., galleries, libraries, museums, archives and all types of cultural content. The development of Europeana, as a single point of access to European Cultural Heritage, has probably been the most important result of the activities in the field till now. Semantic interoperability, linked open data, user involvement and user generated content are key issues in these developments. This paper presents a system that provides content providers and users the ability to map, in an effective way, their own metadata schemas to common domain standards and the Europeana (ESE, EDM) data models. The system is currently largely used by many European research projects and the Europeana. Based on these mappings, semantic query answering techniques are proposed as a means for effective access to digital cultural heritage, providing users with content enrichment, linking of data based on their involvement and facilitating content search and retrieval. An experimental study is presented, involving content from national content aggregators, as well as thematic content aggregators and the Europeana, which illustrates the proposed system

Content

Beitrag eines Schwerpunktthemas: Semantic Web and Reasoning for Cultural Heritage and Digital Libraries: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/systemic-approach-eff%0Bective-semantic-access-cultural-content http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/sites/default/files/swj147_3.pdf.

0.03555496 = product of:
  0.10666488 = sum of:
    0.024034524 = weight(_text_:libraries in 6470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024034524 = score(doc=6470,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 6470, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6470)
    0.08263036 = weight(_text_:europe in 6470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08263036 = score(doc=6470,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24556698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.33648807 = fieldWeight in 6470, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6470)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

PhysNet offers online services that enable a physicist to keep in touch with the worldwide physics community and to receive all information he or she may need. In addition to being of great value to physicists, these services are practical examples of the use of modern methods of digital libraries, in particular the use of metadata harvesting. One service is PhysDoc. This consists of a Harvest-based online information broker- and gatherer-network, which harvests information from the local web-servers of professional physics institutions worldwide (mostly in Europe and USA so far). PhysDoc focuses on scientific information posted by the individual scientist at his local server, such as documents, publications, reports, publication lists, and lists of links to documents. All rights are reserved for the authors who are responsible for the content and quality of their documents. PhysDis is an analogous service but specifically for university theses, with their dual requirements of examination work and publication. The strategy is to select high quality sites containing metadata. We report here on the present status of PhysNet, our experience in operating it, and the development of its usage. To continuously involve authors, research groups, and national societies is considered crucial for a future stable service.

0.033052146 = product of:
  0.19831288 = sum of:
    0.19831288 = weight(_text_:europe in 6901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19831288 = score(doc=6901,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24556698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.8075714 = fieldWeight in 6901, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6901)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.033017293 = product of:
  0.09905188 = sum of:
    0.041210625 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041210625 = score(doc=1263,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.3111654 = fieldWeight in 1263, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1263)
    0.057841253 = weight(_text_:europe in 1263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057841253 = score(doc=1263,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24556698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.23554166 = fieldWeight in 1263, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1263)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The Internet would not be very useful if communication were limited to textual exchanges between speakers of English located in the United States. Rather, its value lies in its ability to enable people from multiple nations, speaking multiple languages, to employ multiple media in interacting with each other. While computer networks broke through national boundaries long ago, they remain much more effective for textual communication than for exchanges of sound, images, or mixed media -- and more effective for communication in English than for exchanges in most other languages, much less interactions involving multiple languages. Supporting searching and display in multiple languages is an increasingly important issue for all digital libraries accessible on the Internet. Even if a digital library contains materials in only one language, the content needs to be searchable and displayable on computers in countries speaking other languages. We need to exchange data between digital libraries, whether in a single language or in multiple languages. Data exchanges may be large batch updates or interactive hyperlinks. In any of these cases, character sets must be represented in a consistent manner if exchanges are to succeed. Issues of interoperability, portability, and data exchange related to multi-lingual character sets have received surprisingly little attention in the digital library community or in discussions of standards for information infrastructure, except in Europe. The landmark collection of papers on Standards Policy for Information Infrastructure, for example, contains no discussion of multi-lingual issues except for a passing reference to the Unicode standard. The goal of this short essay is to draw attention to the multi-lingual issues involved in designing digital libraries accessible on the Internet. Many of the multi-lingual design issues parallel those of multi-media digital libraries, a topic more familiar to most readers of D-Lib Magazine. This essay draws examples from multi-media DLs to illustrate some of the urgent design challenges in creating a globally distributed network serving people who speak many languages other than English. First we introduce some general issues of medium, culture, and language, then discuss the design challenges in the transition from local to global systems, lastly addressing technical matters. The technical issues involve the choice of character sets to represent languages, similar to the choices made in representing images or sound. However, the scale of the language problem is far greater. Standards for multi-media representation are being adopted fairly rapidly, in parallel with the availability of multi-media content in electronic form. By contrast, we have hundreds (and sometimes thousands) of years worth of textual materials in hundreds of languages, created long before data encoding standards existed. Textual content from past and present is being encoded in language and application-specific representations that are difficult to exchange without losing data -- if they exchange at all. We illustrate the multi-language DL challenge with examples drawn from the research library community, which typically handles collections of materials in 400 or so languages. These are problems faced not only by developers of digital libraries, but by those who develop and manage any communication technology that crosses national or linguistic boundaries.

0.031161863 = product of:
  0.18697117 = sum of:
    0.18697117 = weight(_text_:europe in 5137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18697117 = score(doc=5137,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24556698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.7613856 = fieldWeight in 5137, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5137)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of plans to implement RDA: Resource Description & Access in Europe to replace existing cataloguing rules. It is based on survey information gathered by EURIG and CILIP CIG. It includes background on the development of RDA as a replacement for AACR2.

0.028443968 = product of:
  0.0853319 = sum of:
    0.019227618 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019227618 = score(doc=1832,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.14518027 = fieldWeight in 1832, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1832)
    0.066104285 = weight(_text_:europe in 1832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066104285 = score(doc=1832,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24556698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.26919046 = fieldWeight in 1832, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1832)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Welcome to the very first issue of EuropeanaTech Insight, a multimedia publication about research and development within the EuropeanaTech community. EuropeanaTech is a very active community. It spans all of Europe and is made up of technical experts from the various disciplines within digital cultural heritage. At any given moment, members can be found presenting their work in project meetings, seminars and conferences around the world. Now, through EuropeanaTech Insight, we can share that inspiring work with the whole community. In our first three issues, we're showcasing topics discussed at the EuropeanaTech 2015 Conference, an exciting event that gave rise to lots of innovative ideas and fruitful conversations on the themes of data quality, data modelling, open data, data re-use, multilingualism and discovery. Welcome, bienvenue, bienvenido, Välkommen, Tervetuloa to the first Issue of EuropeanaTech Insight. Are we talking your language? No? Well I can guarantee you Europeana is. One of the European Union's great beauties and strengths is its diversity. That diversity is perhaps most evident in the 24 different languages spoken in the EU. Making it possible for all European citizens to easily and seamlessly communicate in their native language with others who do not speak that language is a huge technical undertaking. Translating documents, news, speeches and historical texts was once exclusively done manually. Clearly, that takes a huge amount of time and resources and means that not everything can be translated... However, with the advances in machine and automatic translation, it's becoming more possible to provide instant and pretty accurate translations. Europeana provides access to over 40 million digitised cultural heritage offering content in over 33 languages. But what value does Europeana provide if people can only find results in their native language? None. That's why the EuropeanaTech community is collectively working towards making it more possible for everyone to discover our collections in their native language. In this issue of EuropeanaTech Insight, we hear from community members who are making great strides in machine translation and enrichment tools to help improve not only access to data, but also how we retrieve, browse and understand it.

Content

Juliane Stiller, J.: Automatic Solutions to Improve Multilingual Access in Europeana / Vila-Suero, D. and A. Gómez-Pérez: Multilingual Linked Data / Pilos, S.: Automated Translation: Connecting Culture / Karlgren, J.: Big Data, Libraries, and Multilingual New Text / Ziedins, J.: Latvia translates with hugo.lv

0.027543453 = product of:
  0.16526072 = sum of:
    0.16526072 = weight(_text_:europe in 7837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16526072 = score(doc=7837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24556698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.67297614 = fieldWeight in 7837, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7837)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.027543453 = product of:
  0.16526072 = sum of:
    0.16526072 = weight(_text_:europe in 112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16526072 = score(doc=112,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24556698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.67297614 = fieldWeight in 112, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=112)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.027211405 = product of:
  0.081634216 = sum of:
    0.023792963 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023792963 = score(doc=1203,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.17965141 = fieldWeight in 1203, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1203)
    0.057841253 = weight(_text_:europe in 1203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057841253 = score(doc=1203,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24556698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.23554166 = fieldWeight in 1203, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1203)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The International DOI Foundation (IDF) recently published the third edition of its DOI Handbook, which sets the scene for DOI's expansion into much wider applications. Edition 3 is not simply an updated user guide. A great deal has happened in the underlying technologies and in the practical deployment and development of DOIs (Digital Object Identifiers) since the last edition was published a year ago. Much of the program of technical work foreseen at the inception of DOIs has now been completed. The initial simple implementation of DOI as a persistent name linked to redirection continues to grow, with approaching ten million DOIs assigned from several hundred organisations through a number of Registration Agencies in USA, Europe, and Australasia, supporting large scale business uses. Implementations of more sophisticated applications (offering associated services) have been developing well but on a smaller scale: a framework for building these has been completed as part of the latest release and promises to stimulate a new wave of growth. From its original starting point in text publishing, there has been gradual embrace by a number of communities: these include national libraries (a consortium of national libraries recently joined the IDF); government documentation (with the appointment of TSO The Stationery Office in the UK as a DOI agency and the announced intention of the EC Office of Publications to use DOIs); non-English language markets (France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Korea). However implementations in non-text sectors have been far slower to develop, though several are now under discussion. The DOI community can point to several significant achievements over the past few years: * A practical successful open implementation of naming objects, treating content as information objects, not simply packets of bits; * The IDF's role in co-sponsoring, championing, and now implementing the <indecs>T framework as a semantic tool for structured metadata - an essential step for treating content as information in Semantic-Web-like applications; * A template for building advanced applications, connecting resolution and metadata technologies, and offering hooks to web services and similar applications; * The development of a policy framework that allows multiple communities autonomy; * The practical implementation of DOIs with emerging related standards such as the OpenURL framework in contextual linking.

0.022034762 = product of:
  0.13220857 = sum of:
    0.13220857 = weight(_text_:europe in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13220857 = score(doc=3340,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24556698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.5383809 = fieldWeight in 3340, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3340)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article describes the Internet information retrieval protocol, Z39.50, and it's usage. The services of Z39.50 are depicted, as are some important terms related to the standard. A description of the OPAC Network in Europe (ONE), an important Z39.50 implementation project is included

0.020101393 = product of:
  0.060304176 = sum of:
    0.038455237 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038455237 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 2686, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2686)
    0.02184894 = product of:
      0.04369788 = sum of:
        0.04369788 = weight(_text_:22 in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04369788 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14117907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Metadata (structured information about an object or collection of objects) is increasingly important to libraries, archives, and museums. And although librarians are familiar with a number of issues that apply to creating and using metadata (e.g., authority control, controlled vocabularies, etc.), the world of metadata is nonetheless different than library cataloging, with its own set of challenges. Therefore, whether you are new to these concepts or quite experienced with classic cataloging, this short (20 pages) introductory paper on metadata can be helpful

Date

10. 9.2004 10:22:40

0.020101393 = product of:
  0.060304176 = sum of:
    0.038455237 = weight(_text_:libraries in 541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038455237 = score(doc=541,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 541, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=541)
    0.02184894 = product of:
      0.04369788 = sum of:
        0.04369788 = weight(_text_:22 in 541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04369788 = score(doc=541,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14117907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 541, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=541)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

In this presentation, we therefore focus on a solution for providing uniform access to Digital Libraries and other online services. In order to enable uniform query access to heterogeneous sources, we must provide metadata interoperability in a way that a query language - in this case SPARQL - can cope with the incompatibility of the metadata in various sources without changing their already existing information models.

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:46

0.019382723 = product of:
  0.058148168 = sum of:
    0.049954817 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049954817 = score(doc=1184,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.3771894 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
    0.008193351 = product of:
      0.016386703 = sum of:
        0.016386703 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016386703 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14117907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Google's December 2004 announcement of its intention to collaborate with five major research libraries - Harvard University, the University of Michigan, Stanford University, the University of Oxford, and the New York Public Library - to digitize and surface their print book collections in the Google searching universe has, predictably, stirred conflicting opinion, with some viewing the project as a welcome opportunity to enhance the visibility of library collections in new environments, and others wary of Google's prospective role as gateway to these collections. The project has been vigorously debated on discussion lists and blogs, with the participating libraries commonly referred to as "the Google 5". One point most observers seem to concede is that the questions raised by this initiative are both timely and significant. The Google Print Library Project (GPLP) has galvanized a long overdue, multi-faceted discussion about library print book collections. The print book is core to library identity and practice, but in an era of zero-sum budgeting, it is almost inevitable that print book budgets will decline as budgets for serials, digital resources, and other materials expand. As libraries re-allocate resources to accommodate changing patterns of user needs, print book budgets may be adversely impacted. Of course, the degree of impact will depend on a library's perceived mission. A public library may expect books to justify their shelf-space, with de-accession the consequence of minimal use. A national library, on the other hand, has a responsibility to the scholarly and cultural record and may seek to collect comprehensively within particular areas, with the attendant obligation to secure the long-term retention of its print book collections. The combination of limited budgets, changing user needs, and differences in library collection strategies underscores the need to think about a collective, or system-wide, print book collection - in particular, how can an inter-institutional system be organized to achieve goals that would be difficult, and/or prohibitively expensive, for any one library to undertake individually [4]? Mass digitization programs like GPLP cast new light on these and other issues surrounding the future of library print book collections, but at this early stage, it is light that illuminates only dimly. It will be some time before GPLP's implications for libraries and library print book collections can be fully appreciated and evaluated. But the strong interest and lively debate generated by this initiative suggest that some preliminary analysis - premature though it may be - would be useful, if only to undertake a rough mapping of the terrain over which GPLP potentially will extend. At the least, some early perspective helps shape interesting questions for the future, when the boundaries of GPLP become settled, workflows for producing and managing the digitized materials become systematized, and usage patterns within the GPLP framework begin to emerge.
This article offers some perspectives on GPLP in light of what is known about library print book collections in general, and those of the Google 5 in particular, from information in OCLC's WorldCat bibliographic database and holdings file. Questions addressed include: * Coverage: What proportion of the system-wide print book collection will GPLP potentially cover? What is the degree of holdings overlap across the print book collections of the five participating libraries? * Language: What is the distribution of languages associated with the print books held by the GPLP libraries? Which languages are predominant? * Copyright: What proportion of the GPLP libraries' print book holdings are out of copyright? * Works: How many distinct works are represented in the holdings of the GPLP libraries? How does a focus on works impact coverage and holdings overlap? * Convergence: What are the effects on coverage of using a different set of five libraries? What are the effects of adding the holdings of additional libraries to those of the GPLP libraries, and how do these effects vary by library type? These questions certainly do not exhaust the analytical possibilities presented by GPLP. More in-depth analysis might look at Google 5 coverage in particular subject areas; it also would be interesting to see how many books covered by the GPLP have already been digitized in other contexts. However, these questions are left to future studies. The purpose here is to explore a few basic questions raised by GPLP, and in doing so, provide an empirical context for the debate that is sure to continue for some time to come. A secondary objective is to lay some groundwork for a general set of questions that could be used to explore the implications of any mass digitization initiative. A suggested list of questions is provided in the conclusion of the article.

Date

26.12.2011 14:08:22

0.019280419 = product of:
  0.115682505 = sum of:
    0.115682505 = weight(_text_:europe in 3886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.115682505 = score(doc=3886,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24556698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.4710833 = fieldWeight in 3886, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3886)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper is about the relationship between the topic map and RDF standards families. It compares the two technologies and looks at ways to make it easier for users to live in a world where both technologies are used. This is done by looking at how to convert information back and forth between the two technologies, how to convert schema information, and how to do queries across both information representations. Ways to achieve all of these goals are presented. This paper extends and improves on earlier work on the same subject, described in [Garshol01b]. This paper was first published in the proceedings of XML Europe 2003, 5-8 May 2003, organized by IDEAlliance, London, UK.