Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Miller, E."
  • × type_ss:"el"
  1. Miller, E.; Schloss. B.; Lassila, O.; Swick, R.R.: Resource Description Framework (RDF) : model and syntax (1997) 0.00
    0.0025803389 = product of:
      0.0051606777 = sum of:
        0.0051606777 = product of:
          0.010321355 = sum of:
            0.010321355 = weight(_text_:a in 5903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.010321355 = score(doc=5903,freq=38.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.19435552 = fieldWeight in 5903, product of:
                  6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
                    38.0 = termFreq=38.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5903)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    RDF - the Resource Description Framework - is a foundation for processing metadata; it provides interoperability between applications that exchange machine-understandable information on the Web. RDF emphasizes facilities to enable automated processing of Web resources. RDF metadata can be used in a variety of application areas; for example: in resource discovery to provide better search engine capabilities; in cataloging for describing the content and content relationships available at a particular Web site, page, or digital library; by intelligent software agents to facilitate knowledge sharing and exchange; in content rating; in describing collections of pages that represent a single logical "document"; for describing intellectual property rights of Web pages, and in many others. RDF with digital signatures will be key to building the "Web of Trust" for electronic commerce, collaboration, and other applications. Metadata is "data about data" or specifically in the context of RDF "data describing web resources." The distinction between "data" and "metadata" is not an absolute one; it is a distinction created primarily by a particular application. Many times the same resource will be interpreted in both ways simultaneously. RDF encourages this view by using XML as the encoding syntax for the metadata. The resources being described by RDF are, in general, anything that can be named via a URI. The broad goal of RDF is to define a mechanism for describing resources that makes no assumptions about a particular application domain, nor defines the semantics of any application domain. The definition of the mechanism should be domain neutral, yet the mechanism should be suitable for describing information about any domain. This document introduces a model for representing RDF metadata and one syntax for expressing and transporting this metadata in a manner that maximizes the interoperability of independently developed web servers and clients. The syntax described in this document is best considered as a "serialization syntax" for the underlying RDF representation model. The serialization syntax is XML, XML being the W3C's work-in-progress to define a richer Web syntax for a variety of applications. RDF and XML are complementary; there will be alternate ways to represent the same RDF data model, some more suitable for direct human authoring. Future work may lead to including such alternatives in this document.
    Content
    RDF Data Model At the core of RDF is a model for representing named properties and their values. These properties serve both to represent attributes of resources (and in this sense correspond to usual attribute-value-pairs) and to represent relationships between resources. The RDF data model is a syntax-independent way of representing RDF statements. RDF statements that are syntactically very different could mean the same thing. This concept of equivalence in meaning is very important when performing queries, aggregation and a number of other tasks at which RDF is aimed. The equivalence is defined in a clean machine understandable way. Two pieces of RDF are equivalent if and only if their corresponding data model representations are the same. Table of contents 1. Introduction 2. RDF Data Model 3. RDF Grammar 4. Signed RDF 5. Examples 6. Appendix A: Brief Explanation of XML Namespaces
  2. Bearman, D.; Miller, E.; Rust, G.; Trant, J.; Weibel, S.: ¬A common model to support interoperable metadata : progress report on reconciling metadata requirements from the Dublin Core and INDECS/DOI communities (1999) 0.00
    0.0022374375 = product of:
      0.004474875 = sum of:
        0.004474875 = product of:
          0.00894975 = sum of:
            0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.00894975 = score(doc=1249,freq=14.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
                  3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                    14.0 = termFreq=14.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The Dublin Core metadata community and the INDECS/DOI community of authors, rights holders, and publishers are seeking common ground in the expression of metadata for information resources. Recent meetings at the 6th Dublin Core Workshop in Washington DC sketched out common models for semantics (informed by the requirements articulated in the IFLA Functional Requirements for the Bibliographic Record) and conventions for knowledge representation (based on the Resource Description Framework under development by the W3C). Further development of detailed requirements is planned by both communities in the coming months with the aim of fully representing the metadata needs of each. An open "Schema Harmonization" working group has been established to identify a common framework to support interoperability among these communities. The present document represents a starting point identifying historical developments and common requirements of these perspectives on metadata and charts a path for harmonizing their respective conceptual models. It is hoped that collaboration over the coming year will result in agreed semantic and syntactic conventions that will support a high degree of interoperability among these communities, ideally expressed in a single data model and using common, standard tools.
    Type
    a
  3. Miller, E.: ¬An introduction to the Resource Description Framework (1998) 0.00
    0.001674345 = product of:
      0.00334869 = sum of:
        0.00334869 = product of:
          0.00669738 = sum of:
            0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 1231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.00669738 = score(doc=1231,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 1231, 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=1231)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is an infrastructure that enables the encoding, exchange and reuse of structured metadata. RDF is an application of XML that imposes needed structural constraints to provide unambiguous methods of expressing semantics. RDF additionally provides a means for publishing both human-readable and machine-processable vocabularies designed to encourage the reuse and extension of metadata semantics among disparate information communities. The structural constraints RDF imposes to support the consistent encoding and exchange of standardized metadata provides for the interchangeability of separate packages of metadata defined by different resource description communities.
    Type
    a