Search (515 results, page 1 of 26)

  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  1. Brasethvik, T.: ¬A semantic modeling approach to metadata (1998) 0.04
    0.041958824 = product of:
      0.09440735 = sum of:
        0.02513438 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02513438 = score(doc=5165,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 5165, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5165)
        0.044610593 = weight(_text_:use in 5165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044610593 = score(doc=5165,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.4101866 = fieldWeight in 5165, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5165)
        0.013434161 = weight(_text_:of in 5165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013434161 = score(doc=5165,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 5165, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5165)
        0.011228213 = product of:
          0.033684637 = sum of:
            0.033684637 = weight(_text_:22 in 5165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.033684637 = score(doc=5165,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.035517205 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5165, 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=5165)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.44444445 = coord(4/9)
    
    Abstract
    States that heterogeneous project groups today may be expected to use the mechanisms of the Web for sharing information. Metadata has been proposed as a mechanism for expressing the semantics of information and, hence, facilitate information retrieval, understanding and use. Presents an approach to sharing information which aims to use a semantic modeling language as the basis for expressing the semantics of information and designing metadata schemes. Functioning on the borderline between human and computer understandability, the modeling language would be able to express the semantics of published Web documents. Reporting on work in progress, presents the overall framework and ideas
    Date
    9. 9.2000 17:22:23
  2. Gardner, T.; Iannella, R.: Architecture and software solutions (2000) 0.04
    0.041796256 = product of:
      0.09404157 = sum of:
        0.028725008 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028725008 = score(doc=4867,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 4867, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4867)
        0.041627884 = weight(_text_:use in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041627884 = score(doc=4867,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.3827611 = fieldWeight in 4867, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4867)
        0.010856442 = weight(_text_:of in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010856442 = score(doc=4867,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 4867, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4867)
        0.012832243 = product of:
          0.03849673 = sum of:
            0.03849673 = weight(_text_:22 in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03849673 = score(doc=4867,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.035517205 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4867, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4867)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.44444445 = coord(4/9)
    
    Abstract
    The current subject gateways have evolved over time when the discipline of Internet resource discovery was in its infancy. This is reflected by the lack of well-established, light-weight, deployable, easy-to-use, standards for metadata and information retrieval. We provide an introduction to the architecture, standards and software solutions in use by subject gateways, and to the issues that must be addressed to support future subject gateways
    Date
    22. 6.2002 19:38:24
  3. Baker, T.; Dekkers, M.: Identifying metadata elements with URIs : The CORES resolution (2003) 0.04
    0.040315103 = product of:
      0.120945305 = sum of:
        0.014717679 = weight(_text_:use in 1199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014717679 = score(doc=1199,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.13532647 = fieldWeight in 1199, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1199)
        0.016284661 = weight(_text_:of in 1199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016284661 = score(doc=1199,freq=36.0), product of:
            0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 1199, product of:
              6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
                36.0 = termFreq=36.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1199)
        0.08994296 = weight(_text_:compact in 1199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08994296 = score(doc=1199,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26885647 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.5697527 = idf(docFreq=61, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.33453897 = fieldWeight in 1199, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.5697527 = idf(docFreq=61, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1199)
      0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    
    Abstract
    On 18 November 2002, at a meeting organised by the CORES Project (Information Society Technologies Programme, European Union), several organisations regarded as maintenance authorities for metadata elements achieved consensus on a resolution to assign Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) to metadata elements as a useful first step towards the development of mapping infrastructures and interoperability services. The signatories of the CORES Resolution agreed to promote this consensus in their communities and beyond and to implement an action plan in the following six months. Six months having passed, the maintainers of GILS, ONIX, MARC 21, CERIF, DOI, IEEE/LOM, and Dublin Core report on their implementations of the resolution and highlight issues of relevance to establishing good-practice conventions for declaring, identifying, and maintaining metadata elements more generally. In June 2003, the resolution was also endorsed by the maintainers of UNIMARC. The "Resolution on Metadata Element Identifiers", or CORES Resolution, is an agreement among the maintenance organisations for several major metadata standards - GILS, ONIX, MARC 21, UNIMARC, CERIF, DOI®, IEEE/LOM, and Dublin Core - to identify their metadata elements using Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs). The Uniform Resource Identifier, defined in the IETF RFC 2396 as "a compact string of characters for identifying an abstract or physical resource", has been promoted for use as a universal form of identification by the World Wide Web Consortium. The CORES Resolution, formulated at a meeting organised by the European project CORES in November 2002, included a commitment to publicise the consensus statement to a wider audience of metadata standards initiatives and to implement key points of the agreement within the following six months - specifically, to define URI assignment mechanisms, assign URIs to elements, and formulate policies for the persistence of those URIs. This article marks the passage of six months by reporting on progress made in implementing this common action plan. After presenting the text of the CORES Resolution and its three "clarifications", the article summarises the position of each signatory organisation towards assigning URIs to its metadata elements, noting any practical or strategic problems that may have emerged. These progress reports were based on input from Thomas Baker, José Borbinha, Eliot Christian, Erik Duval, Keith Jeffery, Rebecca Guenther, and Norman Paskin. The article closes with a few general observations about these first steps towards the clarification of shared conventions for the identification of metadata elements and perhaps, one can hope, towards the ultimate goal of improving interoperability among a diversity of metadata communities.
  4. Haynes, D.: Metadata for information management and retrieval : understanding metadata and its use (2018) 0.03
    0.031597428 = product of:
      0.094792284 = sum of:
        0.052771207 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052771207 = score(doc=4096,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.49118498 = fieldWeight in 4096, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4096)
        0.022076517 = weight(_text_:use in 4096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022076517 = score(doc=4096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 4096, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4096)
        0.019944556 = weight(_text_:of in 4096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019944556 = score(doc=4096,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 4096, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4096)
      0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    
    Abstract
    This new and updated second edition of a classic text provides a thought-provoking introduction to metadata for all library and information students and professionals. Metadata for Information Management and Retrieval has been fully revised by David Haynes to bring it up to date with new technology and standards. The new edition, containing new chapters on Metadata Standards and Encoding Schemes, assesses the current theory and practice of metadata and examines key developments in terms of both policy and technology. Coverage includes: an introduction to the concept of metadata a description of the main components of metadata systems and standards an overview of the scope of metadata and its applications a description of typical information retrieval issues in corporate and research environments a demonstration of ways in which metadata is used to improve retrieval a look at ways in which metadata is used to manage information consideration of the role of metadata in information governance.
    RSWK
    Informationsmanagement / Information Retrieval / Metadatenmodell
    Subject
    Informationsmanagement / Information Retrieval / Metadatenmodell
  5. Cho, H.; Donovan, A.; Lee, J.H.: Art in an algorithm : a taxonomy for describing video game visual styles (2018) 0.03
    0.031554874 = product of:
      0.07099847 = sum of:
        0.025389558 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025389558 = score(doc=4218,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
        0.018397098 = weight(_text_:use in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018397098 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
        0.01919166 = weight(_text_:of in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01919166 = score(doc=4218,freq=32.0), product of:
            0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
              5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
                32.0 = termFreq=32.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
        0.008020152 = product of:
          0.024060456 = sum of:
            0.024060456 = weight(_text_:22 in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.024060456 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.035517205 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.44444445 = coord(4/9)
    
    Abstract
    The discovery and retrieval of video games in library and information systems is, by and large, dependent on a limited set of descriptive metadata. Noticeably missing from this metadata are classifications of visual style-despite the overwhelmingly visual nature of most video games and the interest in visual style among video game users. One explanation for this paucity is the difficulty in eliciting consistent judgements about visual style, likely due to subjective interpretations of terminology and a lack of demonstrable testing for coinciding judgements. This study presents a taxonomy of video game visual styles constructed from the findings of a 22-participant cataloging user study of visual styles. A detailed description of the study, and its value and shortcomings, are presented along with reflections about the challenges of cultivating consensus about visual style in video games. The high degree of overall agreement in the user study demonstrates the potential value of a descriptor like visual style and the use of a cataloging study in developing visual style taxonomies. The resulting visual style taxonomy, the methods and analysis described herein may help improve the organization and retrieval of video games and possibly other visual materials like graphic designs, illustrations, and animations.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.5, S.633-646
  6. Franklin, R.A.: Re-inventing subject access for the semantic web (2003) 0.03
    0.031340864 = product of:
      0.070516944 = sum of:
        0.021543756 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021543756 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
        0.022076517 = weight(_text_:use in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022076517 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
        0.017272491 = weight(_text_:of in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017272491 = score(doc=2556,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
        0.009624182 = product of:
          0.028872546 = sum of:
            0.028872546 = weight(_text_:22 in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.028872546 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.035517205 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.44444445 = coord(4/9)
    
    Abstract
    First generation scholarly research on the Web lacked a firm system of authority control. Second generation Web research is beginning to model subject access with library science principles of bibliographic control and cataloguing. Harnessing the Web and organising the intellectual content with standards and controlled vocabulary provides precise search and retrieval capability, increasing relevance and efficient use of technology. Dublin Core metadata standards permit a full evaluation and cataloguing of Web resources appropriate to highly specific research needs and discovery. Current research points to a type of structure based on a system of faceted classification. This system allows the semantic and syntactic relationships to be defined. Controlled vocabulary, such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings, can be assigned, not in a hierarchical structure, but rather as descriptive facets of relating concepts. Web design features such as this are adding value to discovery and filtering out data that lack authority. The system design allows for scalability and extensibility, two technical features that are integral to future development of the digital library and resource discovery.
    Date
    30.12.2008 18:22:46
  7. White, H.: Examining scientific vocabulary : mapping controlled vocabularies with free text keywords (2013) 0.03
    0.029557984 = product of:
      0.08867395 = sum of:
        0.029435357 = weight(_text_:use in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029435357 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.27065295 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
        0.007676664 = weight(_text_:of in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007676664 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
        0.051561933 = product of:
          0.0773429 = sum of:
            0.038846172 = weight(_text_:29 in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.038846172 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12493842 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.035517205 = queryNorm
                0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
            0.03849673 = weight(_text_:22 in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03849673 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.035517205 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
          0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
      0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    
    Abstract
    Scientific repositories create a new environment for studying traditional information science issues. The interaction between indexing terms provided by users and controlled vocabularies continues to be an area of debate and study. This article reports and analyzes findings from a study that mapped the relationships between free text keywords and controlled vocabulary terms used in the sciences. Based on this study's findings recommendations are made about which vocabularies may be better to use in scientific data repositories.
    Date
    29. 5.2015 19:09:22
  8. Rusch-Feja, D.: Subject oriented collection of information resources from the Internet (1997) 0.03
    0.02832993 = product of:
      0.084989786 = sum of:
        0.030467471 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 528) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030467471 = score(doc=528,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 528, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=528)
        0.038237654 = weight(_text_:use in 528) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038237654 = score(doc=528,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.35158852 = fieldWeight in 528, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=528)
        0.016284661 = weight(_text_:of in 528) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016284661 = score(doc=528,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 528, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=528)
      0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    
    Abstract
    Subject oriented information sources on the Internet remain relativley unstructured despite attempts at indexing them and despite the use of search engines to index sources in a collective database and to retrieve relevant information sources. Describes the rationale for developing a means to capture and structure Internet resources for scientific research use in a clearinghouse, and methods for retrieval, information filtering, and structuring subject orientated information sources from the Internet for specific user groups. Discusses the issues of design, maintenance, implementation of metadata, and obtaining use feedback. Cooperation among several institutions involved in the German national subject special collections (SSG) library support programme of the DFG have led to recommendations to expand this programme to include coordination of collective Internet subject information sites. In addition to the compilation of subject oriented information sites on the Internet by library and information staff, connection to other value added services serve to make processes of information searching, retrieval, acquisition, and evaluation more effective for researchers
  9. Turner, T.P.; Brackbill, L.: Rising to the top : evaluating the use of HTML META tag to improve retrieval of World Wide Web documents through Internet search engines (1998) 0.03
    0.02832993 = product of:
      0.084989786 = sum of:
        0.030467471 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030467471 = score(doc=5230,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 5230, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5230)
        0.038237654 = weight(_text_:use in 5230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038237654 = score(doc=5230,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.35158852 = fieldWeight in 5230, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5230)
        0.016284661 = weight(_text_:of in 5230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016284661 = score(doc=5230,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 5230, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5230)
      0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    
    Abstract
    Reports results of a study to evaluate the effectiveness of using the HTML META tag to improve retrieval of World Wide Web documents through Internet search engines. 20 documents were created in 5 subject areas: agricultural trade; farm business statistics; poultry statistics; vegetable statistics; and cotton statistics. 4 pages were created in each subject area: one with no META tags, one with a META tag using the keywords attribute, one with a META tag using the description attribute, and one with META tags using both the keywords and description attributes. Searches were performed in Alta Vista and Infoseek to find terms common to all pages as well as for each keyword term contained in the META tag. Analysis of the searches suggests that use of the keywords attribute in a META tag substantially improves accessibility while use of the description attribute alone does not. Concludes that HTML document authors should consider using keywords attribute META tags and suggests that more search engines index the META tag to improve resource discovery
  10. Çelebi, A.; Özgür, A.: Segmenting hashtags and analyzing their grammatical structure (2018) 0.03
    0.027999835 = product of:
      0.12599926 = sum of:
        0.013570553 = weight(_text_:of in 4221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013570553 = score(doc=4221,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 4221, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4221)
        0.1124287 = weight(_text_:compact in 4221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1124287 = score(doc=4221,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26885647 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.5697527 = idf(docFreq=61, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.4181737 = fieldWeight in 4221, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.5697527 = idf(docFreq=61, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4221)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Abstract
    Originated as a label to mark specific tweets, hashtags are increasingly used to convey messages that people like to see in the trending hashtags list. Complex noun phrases and even sentences can be turned into a hashtag. Breaking hashtags into their words is a challenging task due to the irregular and compact nature of the language used in Twitter. In this study, we investigate feature-based machine learning and language model (LM)-based approaches for hashtag segmentation. Our results show that LM alone is not successful at segmenting nontrivial hashtags. However, when the N-best LM-based segmentations are incorporated as features into the feature-based approach, along with context-based features proposed in this study, state-of-the-art results in hashtag segmentation are achieved. In addition, we provide an analysis of over two million distinct hashtags, autosegmented by using our best configuration. The analysis reveals that half of all 60 million hashtag occurrences contain multiple words and 80% of sentiment is trapped inside multiword hashtags, justifying the need for hashtag segmentation. Furthermore, we analyze the grammatical structure of hashtags by parsing them and observe that 77% of the hashtags are noun-based, whereas 11.9% are verb-based.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.5, S.675-686
  11. Wu, C.-J.: Experiments on using the Dublin Core to reduce the retrieval error ratio (1998) 0.03
    0.027574709 = product of:
      0.082724124 = sum of:
        0.043534026 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043534026 = score(doc=5201,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 5201, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5201)
        0.025755936 = weight(_text_:use in 5201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025755936 = score(doc=5201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 5201, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5201)
        0.013434161 = weight(_text_:of in 5201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013434161 = score(doc=5201,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 5201, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5201)
      0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    
    Abstract
    In order to test the power of metadata on information retrieval, an experiment was designed and conducted on a group of 7 graduate students using the Dublin Core as the cataloguing metadata. Results show that, on average, the retrieval error rate is only 2.9 per cent for the MES system (http://140.136.85.194), which utilizes the Dublin Core to describe the documents on the World Wide Web, in contrast to 20.7 per cent for the 7 famous search engines including HOTBOT, GAIS, LYCOS, EXCITE, INFOSEEK, YAHOO, and OCTOPUS. The very low error rate indicates that the users can use the information of the Dublin Core to decide whether to retrieve the documents or not
    Source
    Journal of library and information science. 24(1998) no.1, S.50-64
  12. Heidorn, P.B.; Wei, Q.: Automatic metadata extraction from museum specimen labels (2008) 0.03
    0.026792562 = product of:
      0.060283262 = sum of:
        0.01795313 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01795313 = score(doc=2624,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2624, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2624)
        0.018397098 = weight(_text_:use in 2624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018397098 = score(doc=2624,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 2624, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2624)
        0.015912883 = weight(_text_:of in 2624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015912883 = score(doc=2624,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 2624, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2624)
        0.008020152 = product of:
          0.024060456 = sum of:
            0.024060456 = weight(_text_:22 in 2624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.024060456 = score(doc=2624,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.035517205 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2624, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2624)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.44444445 = coord(4/9)
    
    Abstract
    This paper describes the information properties of museum specimen labels and machine learning tools to automatically extract Darwin Core (DwC) and other metadata from these labels processed through Optical Character Recognition (OCR). The DwC is a metadata profile describing the core set of access points for search and retrieval of natural history collections and observation databases. Using the HERBIS Learning System (HLS) we extract 74 independent elements from these labels. The automated text extraction tools are provided as a web service so that users can reference digital images of specimens and receive back an extended Darwin Core XML representation of the content of the label. This automated extraction task is made more difficult by the high variability of museum label formats, OCR errors and the open class nature of some elements. In this paper we introduce our overall system architecture, and variability robust solutions including, the application of Hidden Markov and Naïve Bayes machine learning models, data cleaning, use of field element identifiers, and specialist learning models. The techniques developed here could be adapted to any metadata extraction situation with noisy text and weakly ordered elements.
    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
  13. Campbell, D.G.: Metadata, metaphor, and metonymy (2005) 0.03
    0.02643181 = product of:
      0.07929543 = sum of:
        0.051511873 = weight(_text_:use in 5726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051511873 = score(doc=5726,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.47364265 = fieldWeight in 5726, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5726)
        0.016453419 = weight(_text_:of in 5726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016453419 = score(doc=5726,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 5726, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5726)
        0.011330134 = product of:
          0.0339904 = sum of:
            0.0339904 = weight(_text_:29 in 5726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0339904 = score(doc=5726,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12493842 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.035517205 = queryNorm
                0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 5726, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5726)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    
    Abstract
    This chapter uses a distinction common in literary studies to distinguish between metadata applications for discovery and metadata applications for use. The author argues that metadata systems for resource discovery, such as the Dublin Core, are continuous with the traditions of bibliographic description, and rely on a principle of metonymy: the use of a surrogate or adjunct object to represent another. Metadata systems for resource use, such as semantic markup languages, are continuous with the traditions of database design, and rely on a principle of metaphor: the use of a paradigmatic image or design which conditions how the user will respond to and interact with the data.
    Date
    29. 9.2008 19:10:34
  14. Zhang, J.; Jastram, I.: ¬A study of the metadata creation behavior of different user groups on the Internet (2006) 0.03
    0.026004067 = product of:
      0.0780122 = sum of:
        0.02513438 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02513438 = score(doc=982,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 982, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=982)
        0.0364244 = weight(_text_:use in 982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0364244 = score(doc=982,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.33491597 = fieldWeight in 982, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=982)
        0.016453419 = weight(_text_:of in 982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016453419 = score(doc=982,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 982, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=982)
      0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    
    Abstract
    Metadata is designed to improve information organization and information retrieval effectiveness and efficiency on the Internet. The way web publishers respond to metadata and the way they use it when publishing their web pages, however, is still a mystery. The authors of this paper aim to solve this mystery by defining different professional publisher groups, examining the behaviors of these user groups, and identifying the characteristics of their metadata use. This study will enhance the current understanding of metadata application behavior and provide evidence useful to researchers, web publishers, and search engine designers.
  15. Peters, I.; Stock, W.G.: Power tags in information retrieval (2010) 0.03
    0.02558895 = product of:
      0.07676685 = sum of:
        0.043976005 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043976005 = score(doc=865,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.40932083 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
        0.018397098 = weight(_text_:use in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018397098 = score(doc=865,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
        0.014393743 = weight(_text_:of in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014393743 = score(doc=865,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
      0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - Many Web 2.0 services (including Library 2.0 catalogs) make use of folksonomies. The purpose of this paper is to cut off all tags in the long tail of a document-specific tag distribution. The remaining tags at the beginning of a tag distribution are considered power tags and form a new, additional search option in information retrieval systems. Design/methodology/approach - In a theoretical approach the paper discusses document-specific tag distributions (power law and inverse-logistic shape), the development of such distributions (Yule-Simon process and shuffling theory) and introduces search tags (besides the well-known index tags) as a possibility for generating tag distributions. Findings - Search tags are compatible with broad and narrow folksonomies and with all knowledge organization systems (e.g. classification systems and thesauri), while index tags are only applicable in broad folksonomies. Based on these findings, the paper presents a sketch of an algorithm for mining and processing power tags in information retrieval systems. Research limitations/implications - This conceptual approach is in need of empirical evaluation in a concrete retrieval system. Practical implications - Power tags are a new search option for retrieval systems to limit the amount of hits. Originality/value - The paper introduces power tags as a means for enhancing the precision of search results in information retrieval systems that apply folksonomies, e.g. catalogs in Library 2.0environments.
  16. Hert, C.A.; Denn, S.O.; Gillman, D.W.; Oh, J.S.; Pattuelli, M.C.; Hernandez, N.: Investigating and modeling metadata use to support information architecture development in the statistical knowledge network (2007) 0.02
    0.024507876 = product of:
      0.073523626 = sum of:
        0.021543756 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021543756 = score(doc=422,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 422, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=422)
        0.031220913 = weight(_text_:use in 422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031220913 = score(doc=422,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.2870708 = fieldWeight in 422, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=422)
        0.020758953 = weight(_text_:of in 422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020758953 = score(doc=422,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 422, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=422)
      0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    
    Abstract
    Metadata and an appropriate metadata model are nontrivial components of information architecture conceptualization and implementation, particularly when disparate and dispersed systems are integrated. Metadata availability can enhance retrieval processes, improve information organization and navigation, and support management of digital objects. To support these activities efficiently, metadata need to be modeled appropriately for the tasks. The authors' work focuses on how to understand and model metadata requirements to support the work of end users of an integrative statistical knowledge network (SKN). They report on a series of user studies. These studies provide an understanding of metadata elements necessary for a variety of user-oriented tasks, related business rules associated with the use of these elements, and their relationship to other perspectives on metadata model development. This work demonstrates the importance of the user perspective in this type of design activity and provides a set of strategies by which the results of user studies can be systematically utilized to support that design.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.9, S.1267-1284
  17. Carroll, D.J.; Lele, P.: Human intervention in the networked environment : metadata alternatives (1998) 0.02
    0.024043864 = product of:
      0.07213159 = sum of:
        0.02513438 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02513438 = score(doc=2221,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 2221, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2221)
        0.025755936 = weight(_text_:use in 2221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025755936 = score(doc=2221,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 2221, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2221)
        0.021241274 = weight(_text_:of in 2221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021241274 = score(doc=2221,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 2221, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2221)
      0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    
    Abstract
    Emphasizes the increased importance of the role of the librarian as a 'human' interface in the organization and retrieval of resources in the networked environment. Comments on the recent increase in metadata and compares the long established MARC format and adaptations of MARC with several other alternative metadata systems. Outlines the use of embedded META tag information in HTML documents and describes how existing search engines find and index resources on the WWW, with their pros and cons. Discusses the implications for effective research of the inherent limitations of these automated indexing schemes
    Source
    Data or information: the fading boundaries. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the International Association of Aquatic and Marine Science Libraries and Information Centers (IAMSLIC), Charleston, South Carolina, 5-9 Oct. 1997. Ed.: J.W. Markham et al
  18. Peereboom, M.: DutchESS : Dutch Electronic Subject Service - a Dutch national collaborative effort (2000) 0.02
    0.023540359 = product of:
      0.07062107 = sum of:
        0.040623292 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040623292 = score(doc=4869,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 4869, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4869)
        0.017165542 = weight(_text_:of in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017165542 = score(doc=4869,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 4869, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4869)
        0.012832243 = product of:
          0.03849673 = sum of:
            0.03849673 = weight(_text_:22 in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03849673 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.035517205 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4869, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4869)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    
    Abstract
    This article gives an overview of the design and organisation of DutchESS, a Dutch information subject gateway created as a national collaborative effort of the National Library and a number of academic libraries. The combined centralised and distributed model of DutchESS is discussed, as well as its selection policy, its metadata format, classification scheme and retrieval options. Also some options for future collaboration on an international level are explored
    Date
    22. 6.2002 19:39:23
    Theme
    Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval
  19. Christel, M.G.: Automated metadata in multimedia information systems : creation, refinement, use in surrogates, and evaluation (2009) 0.02
    0.022675818 = product of:
      0.06802745 = sum of:
        0.025389558 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025389558 = score(doc=3086,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 3086, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3086)
        0.026017427 = weight(_text_:use in 3086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026017427 = score(doc=3086,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.23922569 = fieldWeight in 3086, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3086)
        0.016620465 = weight(_text_:of in 3086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016620465 = score(doc=3086,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 3086, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3086)
      0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    
    Abstract
    Improvements in network bandwidth along with dramatic drops in digital storage and processing costs have resulted in the explosive growth of multimedia (combinations of text, image, audio, and video) resources on the Internet and in digital repositories. A suite of computer technologies delivering speech, image, and natural language understanding can automatically derive descriptive metadata for such resources. Difficulties for end users ensue, however, with the tremendous volume and varying quality of automated metadata for multimedia information systems. This lecture surveys automatic metadata creation methods for dealing with multimedia information resources, using broadcast news, documentaries, and oral histories as examples. Strategies for improving the utility of such metadata are discussed, including computationally intensive approaches, leveraging multimodal redundancy, folding in context, and leaving precision-recall tradeoffs under user control. Interfaces building from automatically generated metadata are presented, illustrating the use of video surrogates in multimedia information systems. Traditional information retrieval evaluation is discussed through the annual National Institute of Standards and Technology TRECVID forum, with experiments on exploratory search extending the discussion beyond fact-finding to broader, longer term search activities of learning, analysis, synthesis, and discovery.
    Content
    Table of Contents: Evolution of Multimedia Information Systems: 1990-2008 / Survey of Automatic Metadata Creation Methods / Refinement of Automatic Metadata / Multimedia Surrogates / End-User Utility for Metadata and Surrogates: Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Satisfaction
    Series
    Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval & services
  20. Slavic, A.: General library classification in learning material metadata : the application in IMS/LOM and CDMES metadata schemas (2003) 0.02
    0.022665858 = product of:
      0.067997575 = sum of:
        0.021543756 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021543756 = score(doc=3961,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 3961, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3961)
        0.031220913 = weight(_text_:use in 3961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031220913 = score(doc=3961,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.2870708 = fieldWeight in 3961, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3961)
        0.015232908 = weight(_text_:of in 3961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015232908 = score(doc=3961,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 3961, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3961)
      0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    
    Abstract
    This paper analyses the approach to resource discovery in the educational domain and stresses this community's need for a subject approach to information. The use of both general (Dublin Core) and domain specific (IEEE Learning Object Metadata/IMS Metadata) metadata schemas for learning resource discovery suggests that library classification could be used for subject description. There are several reasons why this indexing language might be suitable for the indexing of education resources. The paper will explain the reasoning behind the application of Universal Decimal Classification in the EASEL (Educator's Access to Services in the Electronic Landscape - http://www.fdgroup.com/easel) project. EASEL deploys two Dublin Core and several different application profiles of LOM i.e. IMS Metadata and this paper will explain how these two types of metadata support the use of classification.
    Source
    Subject retrieval in a networked environment: Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Meeting held in Dublin, OH, 14-16 August 2001 and sponsored by the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section, the IFLA Information Technology Section and OCLC. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 459
  • el 69
  • m 23
  • s 18
  • n 3
  • b 2
  • x 2
  • p 1
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Subjects