Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0248391 = product of:
  0.0496782 = sum of:
    0.0496782 = sum of:
      0.010424593 = weight(_text_:a in 2592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.010424593 = score(doc=2592,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041389145 = queryNorm
          0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 2592, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2592)
      0.039253604 = weight(_text_:22 in 2592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039253604 = score(doc=2592,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14493774 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041389145 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2592, 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=2592)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This report presents recent metadata developments for Dryad, a digital repository hosting datasets underlying publications in the field of evolutionary biology. We review our efforts to bring the Dryad application profile into conformance with the Singapore Framework and discuss practical issues underlying the application profile implementation in a DSpace environment. The report concludes by outlining the next steps planned as Dryad moves into the next phase of development.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

Type

a

0.016515516 = product of:
  0.03303103 = sum of:
    0.03303103 = sum of:
      0.0106004 = weight(_text_:a in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0106004 = score(doc=2661,freq=38.0), product of:
          0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041389145 = queryNorm
          0.22212058 = fieldWeight in 2661, product of:
            6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
              38.0 = termFreq=38.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2661)
      0.022430632 = weight(_text_:22 in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022430632 = score(doc=2661,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14493774 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041389145 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2661, 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=2661)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The basic goal of education within a discipline is to transform a novice into an expert. This entails moving the novice toward the "semantic space" that the expert inhabits-the space of concepts, meanings, vocabularies, and other intellectual constructs that comprise the discipline. Metadata is significant to this goal in digitally mediated education environments. Encoding the experts' semantic space not only enables the sharing of semantics among discipline scientists, but also creates an environment that bridges the semantic gap between the common vocabulary of the novice and the granular descriptive language of the seasoned scientist (Greenberg, et al, 2005). Developments underlying the Semantic Web, where vocabularies are formalized in the Web Ontology Language (OWL), and Web 2.0 approaches of user-generated folksonomies provide an infrastructure for linking vocabulary systems and promoting group learning via metadata literacy. Group learning is a pedagogical approach to teaching that harnesses the phenomenon of "collective intelligence" to increase learning by means of collaboration. Learning a new semantic system can be daunting for a novice, and yet it is integral to advance one's knowledge in a discipline and retain interest. These ideas are key to the "BOT 2.0: Botany through Web 2.0, the Memex and Social Learning" project (Bot 2.0).72 Bot 2.0 is a collaboration involving the North Carolina Botanical Garden, the UNC SILS Metadata Research center, and the Renaissance Computing Institute (RENCI). Bot 2.0 presents a curriculum utilizing a memex as a way for students to link and share digital information, working asynchronously in an environment beyond the traditional classroom. Our conception of a memex is not a centralized black box but rather a flexible, distributed framework that uses the most salient and easiest-to-use collaborative platforms (e.g., Facebook, Flickr, wiki and blog technology) for personal information management. By meeting students "where they live" digitally, we hope to attract students to the study of botanical science. A key aspect is to teach students scientific terminology and about the value of metadata, an inherent function in several of the technologies and in the instructional approach we are utilizing. This poster will report on a study examining the value of both folksonomies and taxonomies for post-secondary college students learning plant identification. Our data is drawn from a curriculum involving a virtual independent learning portion and a "BotCamp" weekend at UNC, where students work with digital plan specimens that they have captured. Results provide some insight into the importance of collaboration and shared vocabulary for gaining confidence and for student progression from novice to expert in botany.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

Type

a

0.002579418 = product of:
  0.005158836 = sum of:
    0.005158836 = product of:
      0.010317672 = sum of:
        0.010317672 = weight(_text_:a in 224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010317672 = score(doc=224,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 224, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=224)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0023790773 = product of:
  0.0047581545 = sum of:
    0.0047581545 = product of:
      0.009516309 = sum of:
        0.009516309 = weight(_text_:a in 6529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009516309 = score(doc=6529,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 6529, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6529)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reports on a quantitative categorical analysis of metadata elements in the Dublin Core, VRA Core, REACH, and EAD metadata schemas, all of which can be used for organizing and describing images. The study found that each of the examined metadata schemas contains elements that support the discovery, use, authentication, and administration of images, and that the number and proportion of elements supporting functions in these classes varies per schema. The study introduces a new schema comparison methodology and explores the development of a class-oriented functional metadata schema for controlling images across multiple domains

Type

a

0.0022338415 = product of:
  0.004467683 = sum of:
    0.004467683 = product of:
      0.008935366 = sum of:
        0.008935366 = weight(_text_:a in 5008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008935366 = score(doc=5008,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 5008, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5008)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

While information retrieval thesauri may improve search results, there is little research documenting whether general information system users employ these vocabulary tools. This article explores user comprehension and searching with thesauri. Data was gathered as part of a larger empirical query-expansion study involving the ProQuest Controlled Vocabulary. The results suggest that users' knowledge of thesauri is extremely limited. After receiving a basic thesaurus introduction, however, users indicate a desire to employ these tools. The most significant result was that users expressed a preference for thesauri employment through interactive processing or a combination of automatic and interactive processing, compared to exclusively automatic processing. This article defines information retrieval thesauri, summarizes research results, considers circumstances underlying users' knowledge and searching with thesauri, and highlights future research needs.

Type

a

0.0022338415 = product of:
  0.004467683 = sum of:
    0.004467683 = product of:
      0.008935366 = sum of:
        0.008935366 = weight(_text_:a in 5725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008935366 = score(doc=5725,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 5725, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5725)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although the development and implementation of metadata schemes over the last decade has been extensive, research examining the sum of these activities is limited. This limitation is likely due to the massive scope of the topic. A framework is needed to study the full extent of, and functionalities supported by, metadata schemes. Metadata schemes developed for information resources are analyzed. To begin, I present a review of the definition of metadata, metadata functions, and several metadata typologies. Next, a conceptualization for metadata schemes is presented. The emphasis is on semantic container-like metadata schemes (data structures). The last part of this paper introduces the MODAL (Metadata Objectives and principles, Domains, and Architectural Layout) framework as an approach for studying metadata schemes. The paper concludes with a brief discussion on value of frameworks for examining metadata schemes, including different types of metadata schemes.

Content

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Metadata: a cataloger's primer"

Type

a

0.002149515 = product of:
  0.00429903 = sum of:
    0.00429903 = product of:
      0.00859806 = sum of:
        0.00859806 = weight(_text_:a in 5703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00859806 = score(doc=5703,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 5703, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5703)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Structured thesauri encode equivalent, hierarchical, and associative relationships and have been developed as indexing/retrieval tools. Despite the fact that these tools provide a rich semantic network of vocabulary terms, they are seldom employed for automatic query expansion (QE) activities. This article reports on an experiment that examined whether thesaurus terms, related to query in a specified semantic way (as synonyms and partial-synonyms (SYNs), narrower terms (NTs), related terms (RTs), and broader terms (BTs)), could be identified as having a more positive impact on retrieval effectiveness when added to a query through automatic QE. The research found that automatic QE via SYNs and NTs increased relative recall with a decline in precision that was not statistically significant, and that automatic QE via RTs and BTs increased relative recall with a decline in precision that was statistically significant. Recallbased and a precision-based ranking orders for automatic QE via semantically encoded thesauri terminology were identified. Mapping results found between enduser query terms and the ProQuest Controlled Vocabulary (1997) (the thesaurus used in this study) are reported, and future research foci related to the investigation are discussed

Type

a

0.002149515 = product of:
  0.00429903 = sum of:
    0.00429903 = product of:
      0.00859806 = sum of:
        0.00859806 = weight(_text_:a in 1281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00859806 = score(doc=1281,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 1281, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.002149515 = product of:
  0.00429903 = sum of:
    0.00429903 = product of:
      0.00859806 = sum of:
        0.00859806 = weight(_text_:a in 5909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00859806 = score(doc=5909,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 5909, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5909)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article focuses on the relevance judgments made by health information users who use the Web. Health information users were conceptualized as motivated information users concerned about how an environmental issue affects their health. Users identified their own environmental health interests and conducted a Web search of a particular environmental health Web site. Users were asked to identify (by highlighting with a mouse) the criteria they use to assess relevance in both Web search engine surrogates and full-text Web documents. Content analysis of document criteria highlighted by users identified the criteria these users relied on most often. Key criteria identified included (in order of frequency of appearance) research, topic, scope, data, influence, affiliation, Web characteristics, and authority/ person. A power-law distribution of criteria was observed (a few criteria represented most of the highlighted regions, with a long tail of occasionally used criteria). Implications of this work are that information retrieval (IR) systems should be tailored in terms of users' tendencies to rely on certain document criteria, and that relevance research should combine methods to gather richer, contextualized data. Metadata for IR systems, such as that used in search engine surrogates, could be improved by taking into account actual usage of relevance criteria. Such metadata should be user-centered (based on data from users, as in this study) and contextappropriate (fit to users' situations and tasks).

Type

a

0.002149515 = product of:
  0.00429903 = sum of:
    0.00429903 = product of:
      0.00859806 = sum of:
        0.00859806 = weight(_text_:a in 2990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00859806 = score(doc=2990,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 2990, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2990)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Dryad repository is for data supporting published research in the field of evolutionary biology and related disciplines. Dryad development team members seek a theoretical framework to aid communication about metadata issues and plans. This article explores lifecycle modeling as a theoretical framework for understanding metadata in the repostiroy enivornment. A background discussion reviews the importance of theory, the status of a metadata theory, and lifecycle concepts. An analysis draws examples from the Dryad repository demonstrating automatic propagation, metadata inheritance, and value system adoption, and reports results from a faceted term mapping experiment that included 12 vocabularies and approximately 600 terms. The article also reports selected key findings from a recent survey on the data-sharing attitudes and behaviors of nearly 400 evolutionary biologists. Te results confirm the applicability of lifecycle modeling to Dryad's metadata infrastructure. The article concludes that lifecycle modeling provides a theoretical framework that can enhance our understanding of metadata, aid communication about the topic of metadata in the repository environment, and potentially help sustain robust repository development.

Type

a

0.001823924 = product of:
  0.003647848 = sum of:
    0.003647848 = product of:
      0.007295696 = sum of:
        0.007295696 = weight(_text_:a in 4697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007295696 = score(doc=4697,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4697, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4697)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The range of metadata activity over this last decade is both extensive and astonishing, and substantiates metadata as an integral part of our digital information infrastructure. This entry begins with a brief history of metadata relating to digital information, followed by an overview of different metadata types, functions, and domain-specific definitions. Next, the family of standards comprising a metadata architecture are defined, followed by an overview of metadata generation processes, applications, and people: this latter section gives particular attention to automatic metadata generation approaches. The following section explores four key metadata models. The conclusion summarizes the entry, highlights a number of significant metadata challenges, and notes efforts underway to address metadata challenges in the new millennium.

Type

a

0.001719612 = product of:
  0.003439224 = sum of:
    0.003439224 = product of:
      0.006878448 = sum of:
        0.006878448 = weight(_text_:a in 1251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006878448 = score(doc=1251,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1251, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Metadata generation is the act of creating or producing metadata. Generating good quality metadata in an efficient manner is essential for organizing and making accessible the growing number of rich resources available an the Web. The success of digital libraries, the sustenance of interoperability - as promoted by the Open Archives Initiative - and the evolution of Semantic Web all rely an efficient metadata generation. This article sketches a metadata generation framework that involves processes, people and tools. It also presents selected research initiatives and highlights the goals of the Metadata Generation Research Project.

Type

a

0.0015795645 = product of:
  0.003159129 = sum of:
    0.003159129 = product of:
      0.006318258 = sum of:
        0.006318258 = weight(_text_:a in 5140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006318258 = score(doc=5140,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 5140, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5140)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Newby, Greenberg, and Jones analyze programming productivity of open source software by counting registered developers contributions found in the Linux Software Map and in Scourceforge. Using seven years of data from a subset of the Linux directory tree LSM data provided 4503 files with 3341 unique author names. The distribution follows Lotka's Law with an exponent of 2.82 as verified by the Kolmolgorov-Smirnov one sample goodness of fit test. Scourceforge data is broken into developers and administrators, but when both were used as authors the Lotka distribution exponent of 2.55 produces the lowest error. This would not be significant by the K-S test but the 3.54% maximum error would indicate a fit and calls into question the appropriateness of K-S for large populations of authors.

Type

a

0.001289709 = product of:
  0.002579418 = sum of:
    0.002579418 = product of:
      0.005158836 = sum of:
        0.005158836 = weight(_text_:a in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005158836 = score(doc=244,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article explores the applicability primary library functions (collection development, cataloging, reference, and circulation) to the Semantic Web. The article defines the Semantic Web, identifies similarities between the library institution and the Semantic Web, and presents research questions guiding the inquiry. The article addresses each library function and demonstrates the applicability of each function's polices to Semantic Web development. Results indicate that library functions are applicable to Semantic Web, with "collection development" translating to "Semantic Web selection;" "cataloging" translating to "Semantic Web 'semantic' representation;" "reference" translating to "Semantic Web service," and circulation translating to "Semantic Web resource use." The last part of this article includes a discussion about the lack of embrace between the library and the Semantic Web communities, recommendations for improving this gap, and research conclusions.

Type

a

0.0010747575 = product of:
  0.002149515 = sum of:
    0.002149515 = product of:
      0.00429903 = sum of:
        0.00429903 = weight(_text_:a in 4264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00429903 = score(doc=4264,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 4264, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Metadata is of paramount importance for persons, organizations, and endeavors of every dimension that are increasingly turning to the World Wide Web (hereafter referred to as the Web) as a chief conduit for accessing and disseminating information. This is evidenced by the development and implementation of metadata schemas supporting projects ranging from restricted corporate intranets, data warehouses, and consumer-oriented electronic commerce enterprises to freely accessible digital libraries, educational initiatives, virtual museums, and other public Web sites. Today's metadata activities are unprecedented because they extend beyond the traditional library environment in an effort to deal with the Web's exponential growth. This article considers metadata in today's Web environment. The article defines metadata, examines the relationship between metadata and cataloging, provides definitions for key metadata vocabulary terms, and explores the topic of metadata generation. Metadata is an extensive and expanding subject that is prevalent in many environments. For practical reasons, this article has elected to concentrate an the information resource domain, which is defined by electronic textual documents, graphical images, archival materials, museum artifacts, and other objects found in both digital and physical information centers (e.g., libraries, museums, record centers, and archives). To show the extent and larger application of metadata, several examples are also drawn from the data warehouse, electronic commerce, open source, and medical communities.

Type

a

9.11962E-4 = product of:
  0.001823924 = sum of:
    0.001823924 = product of:
      0.003647848 = sum of:
        0.003647848 = weight(_text_:a in 5750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003647848 = score(doc=5750,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 5750, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5750)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a