Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Dunsire, G."
  • × type_ss:"el"
  1. Dunsire, G.: Towards an internationalization of RDA management and development (2016) 0.00
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = product of:
          0.008118451 = sum of:
            0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 2956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008118451 = score(doc=2956,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2956, 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=2956)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper discusses the progress that has been made to internationalize the management and development of RDA: Resource Description and Access. RDA has been designed for an international environment, and is used in a number of countries worldwide. The paper describes the impact that international adoption of RDA had on the arrangements for its governance, including a new structure for ensuring international participation. It discusses the progress that has been made to improve wider input into the processes for its development, including working groups, liaisons with related standards organizations, and cataloguing hackathons. The paper is based on desk research of published resources, including websites, blogs, and conference presentations. The paper concludes that the intention to internationalize RDA is serious and has made a good use of its opportunities, although threats to its success remain.
    Type
    a
  2. Vatant, B.; Dunsire, G.: Use case vocabulary merging (2010) 0.00
    0.001913537 = product of:
      0.003827074 = sum of:
        0.003827074 = product of:
          0.007654148 = sum of:
            0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 4336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007654148 = score(doc=4336,freq=16.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 4336, product of:
                  4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                    16.0 = termFreq=16.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4336)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The publication of library legacy includes publication of structuring vocabularies such as thesauri, classifications, subject headings. Different sources use different vocabularies, different in structure, width, depth and scope, and languages. Federated access to distributed data collections is currently possible if they rely on the same vocabularies. Mapping techniques and standards supporting them (such as SKOS mapping properties, OWL sameAs and equivalentClass) are still largely experimental, even in the linked data land. Libraries use a variety of controlled subject vocabulary and classification schemes to index items in their collections. Although most collections will employ only a single scheme, different schemes may be chosen to index different collections within a library or in separate libraries; schemes are chosen on the basis of language, subject focus (general or specific), granularity (specificity), user expectation, and availability and support (cost, currency, completeness, tools). For example, a typical academic library will operate separate metadata systems for the library's main collections, special collections (e.g. manuscripts, archives, audiovisual), digital collections, and one or more institutional repositories for teaching and research output; each of these systems may employ a different subject vocabulary, with little or no interoperability between terms and concepts. Users expect to have a single point-of-search in resource discovery services focussed on their local institutional collections. Librarians have to use complex and expensive resource discovery platforms to meet user expectations. Library communities continue to develop resource discovery services for consortia with a geographical, subject, sector (public, academic, school, special libraries), and/or domain (libraries, archives, museums) focus. Services are based on distributed searching (e.g. via Z39.50) or metadata aggregations (e.g. OCLC's WorldCat and OAISter). As a result, the number of different subject schemes encountered in such services is increasing. Trans-national consortia (e.g. Europeana) add to the complexity of the environment by including subject vocabularies in multiple languages. Users expect single point-of-search in consortial resource discovery service involving multiple organisations and large-scale metadata aggregations. Users also expect to be able to search for subjects using their own language and terms in an unambiguous, contextualised manner.
  3. Baker, T.; Bermès, E.; Coyle, K.; Dunsire, G.; Isaac, A.; Murray, P.; Panzer, M.; Schneider, J.; Singer, R.; Summers, E.; Waites, W.; Young, J.; Zeng, M.: Library Linked Data Incubator Group Final Report (2011) 0.00
    0.001353075 = product of:
      0.00270615 = sum of:
        0.00270615 = product of:
          0.0054123 = sum of:
            0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 4796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0054123 = score(doc=4796,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 4796, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4796)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The mission of the W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group, chartered from May 2010 through August 2011, has been "to help increase global interoperability of library data on the Web, by bringing together people involved in Semantic Web activities - focusing on Linked Data - in the library community and beyond, building on existing initiatives, and identifying collaboration tracks for the future." In Linked Data [LINKEDDATA], data is expressed using standards such as Resource Description Framework (RDF) [RDF], which specifies relationships between things, and Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs, or "Web addresses") [URI]. This final report of the Incubator Group examines how Semantic Web standards and Linked Data principles can be used to make the valuable information assets that library create and curate - resources such as bibliographic data, authorities, and concept schemes - more visible and re-usable outside of their original library context on the wider Web. The Incubator Group began by eliciting reports on relevant activities from parties ranging from small, independent projects to national library initiatives (see the separate report, Library Linked Data Incubator Group: Use Cases) [USECASE]. These use cases provided the starting point for the work summarized in the report: an analysis of the benefits of library Linked Data, a discussion of current issues with regard to traditional library data, existing library Linked Data initiatives, and legal rights over library data; and recommendations for next steps. The report also summarizes the results of a survey of current Linked Data technologies and an inventory of library Linked Data resources available today (see also the more detailed report, Library Linked Data Incubator Group: Datasets, Value Vocabularies, and Metadata Element Sets) [VOCABDATASET].
    Key recommendations of the report are: - That library leaders identify sets of data as possible candidates for early exposure as Linked Data and foster a discussion about Open Data and rights; - That library standards bodies increase library participation in Semantic Web standardization, develop library data standards that are compatible with Linked Data, and disseminate best-practice design patterns tailored to library Linked Data; - That data and systems designers design enhanced user services based on Linked Data capabilities, create URIs for the items in library datasets, develop policies for managing RDF vocabularies and their URIs, and express library data by re-using or mapping to existing Linked Data vocabularies; - That librarians and archivists preserve Linked Data element sets and value vocabularies and apply library experience in curation and long-term preservation to Linked Data datasets.
  4. Dunsire, G.; Willer, M.: Initiatives to make standard library metadata models and structures available to the Semantic Web (2010) 0.00
    0.0011717974 = product of:
      0.0023435948 = sum of:
        0.0023435948 = product of:
          0.0046871896 = sum of:
            0.0046871896 = weight(_text_:a in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0046871896 = score(doc=3965,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.088261776 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper describes recent initiatives to make standard library metadata models and structures available to the Semantic Web, including IFLA standards such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), and International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) along with the infrastructure that supports them. The FRBR Review Group is currently developing representations of FRAD and the entityrelationship model of FRBR in resource description framework (RDF) applications, using a combination of RDF, RDF Schema (RDFS), Simple Knowledge Organisation System (SKOS) and Web Ontology Language (OWL), cross-relating both models where appropriate. The ISBD/XML Task Group is investigating the representation of ISBD in RDF. The IFLA Namespaces project is developing an administrative and technical infrastructure to support such initiatives and encourage uptake of standards by other agencies. The paper describes similar initiatives with related external standards such as RDA - resource description and access, REICAT (the new Italian cataloguing rules) and CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM). The DCMI RDA Task Group is working with the Joint Steering Committee for RDA to develop Semantic Web representations of RDA structural elements, which are aligned with FRBR and FRAD, and controlled metadata content vocabularies. REICAT is also based on FRBR, and an object-oriented version of FRBR has been integrated with CRM, which itself has an RDF representation. CRM was initially based on the metadata needs of the museum community, and is now seeking extension to the archives community with the eventual aim of developing a model common to the main cultural information domains of archives, libraries and museums. The Vocabulary Mapping Framework (VMF) project has developed a Semantic Web tool to automatically generate mappings between metadata models from the information communities, including publishers. The tool is based on several standards, including CRM, FRAD, FRBR, MARC21 and RDA.