Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Cole, T.W."
  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  1. Shreeves, S.L.; Kaczmarek, J.S.; Cole, T.W.: Harvesting cultural heritage metadata using OAI Protocol (2003) 0.00 
    0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 4775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=4775,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4775, 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=4775)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In July of 2001, with funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign undertook a project to test the efficacy of using the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting to construct a search and discovery service focused on information resources in the domain of cultural heritage. To date, the Illinois project has indexed over two million Dublin Core metadata records contributed by 39 metadata repositories in the museum, academic library, and digital library project communities. These records describe a mix of digital and analog primary content. Our analysis of these metadata records demonstrates wide divergence in descriptive metadata practices and the use and interpretation of Dublin Core metadata elements. Differences are particularly notable by community. This article provides an overview of the Illinois project, presents quantitative data about divergent metadata practices and element usage patterns, and details implications for metadata providers and harvesting services.
    Type
    a
  2. Heng, G.; Cole, T.W.; Tian, T.(C.); Han, M.-J.: Rethinking authority reconciliation process (2022) 0.00 
    0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=727,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 727, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=727)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Entity identity management and name reconciliation are intrinsic to both Linked Open Data (LOD) and traditional library authority control. Does this mean that LOD sources can facilitate authority control? This Emblematica Online case study examines the utility of five LOD sources for name reconciliation, comparing design differences regarding ontologies, linking models, and entity properties. It explores the challenges of name reconciliation in the LOD environment and provides lessons learned during a semi-automated name reconciliation process. It also briefly discusses the potential values and benefits of LOD authorities to the authority reconciliation process itself and library services in general.
    Type
    a

Authors

Years