Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  1. Chang, H.-C.; Iyer, I.: Trends in Twitter hashtag applications : design features for value-added dimensions to future library catalogues (2012) 0.00 
    0.0015457221 = product of:
  0.009274333 = sum of:
    0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 5574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009274333 = score(doc=5574,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 5574, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5574)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    The Twitter hashtag is a unique tagging format linking Tweets to user-defined concepts. The aim of the paper is to describe various applications of Twitter hashtags and to determine the functional characteristics of each application. Twitter hashtags can assist in archiving twitter content, provide different visual representations of tweets, and permit grouping by categories and facets. This study seeks to examine the trends in Twitter hashtag features and how these may be applied as enhancements for next-generation library catalogues. For this purpose, Taylor's value-added model is used as an analytical framework. The morphological box developed by Zwicky is used to synthesize functionalities of Twitter hashtag applications. And finally, included are recommendations for the design of hashtag-based value-added dimensions for future library catalogues.
  2. Maurer, M.B.; McCutcheon, S.; Schwing, T.: Who's doing what? : findability and author-supplied ETD metadata in the library catalog (2011) 0.00 
    0.0014724231 = product of:
  0.008834538 = sum of:
    0.008834538 = weight(_text_:in in 1891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008834538 = score(doc=1891,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 1891, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1891)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Kent State University Libraries' ETD cataloging process features contributions by authors, by the ETDcat application, and by catalogers. Who is doing what, and how much of it is findable in the library catalog? An empirical analysis is performed featuring simple frequencies within the KentLINK catalog, articulated by the use of a newly devised rubric. The researchers sought the degree to which the ETD authors, the applications, and the catalogers can supply accurate, findable metadata. Further development of combinatory cataloging processes is suggested. The method of examining the data and the rubric are provided as a framework for other metadata analysis.
  3. Tennant, R.: 21st century cataloguing (1998) 0.00 
    0.0011898974 = product of:
  0.0071393843 = sum of:
    0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 2584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071393843 = score(doc=2584,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 2584, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2584)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Observes how traditional cataloguing differs from the use of metadata to describe the materials in a digital library. Introduces the 3 categories of metadata that have been identified: descriptive (also called intellectual), structural, and administrative. Notes that MARC only deals well with intellectual metadata. Discusses some emerging standards that may be to digital libraries what MARC was to print libraries, the best of these being the Dublin Core

Authors

Years