Search (30 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  1. Tennant, R.: ¬A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty-first century (2004) 0.05 
    0.046513073 = product of:
  0.1860523 = sum of:
    0.021862645 = weight(_text_:of in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021862645 = score(doc=2845,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
    0.16418965 = sum of:
      0.10089115 = weight(_text_:computers in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10089115 = score(doc=2845,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21710795 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.464705 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
      0.0632985 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0632985 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    The current library bibliographic infrastructure was constructed in the early days of computers - before the Web, XML, and a variety of other technological advances that now offer new opportunities. General requirements of a modern metadata infrastructure for libraries are identified, including such qualities as versatility, extensibility, granularity, and openness. A new kind of metadata infrastructure is then proposed that exhibits at least some of those qualities. Some key challenges that must be overcome to implement a change of this magnitude are identified.
    Date
    9.12.2005 19:22:38
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.175-181
  2. Keith, C.: Using XSLT to manipulate MARC metadata (2004) 0.03 
    0.034577712 = product of:
  0.069155425 = sum of:
    0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025667597 = score(doc=4747,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 4747, 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=4747)
    0.02008212 = weight(_text_:of in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02008212 = score(doc=4747,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 4747, 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=4747)
    0.006621159 = product of:
      0.013242318 = sum of:
        0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013242318 = score(doc=4747,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 4747, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4747)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.016784549 = product of:
      0.033569098 = sum of:
        0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033569098 = score(doc=4747,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4747, 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=4747)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    Abstract
    This paper describes the MARCXML architecture implemented at the Library of Congress. It gives an overview of the component pieces of the architecture, including the MARCXML schema and the MARCXML toolkit, while giving a brief tutorial on their use. Several different applications of the architecture and tools are discussed to illustrate the features of the toolkit being developed thus far. Nearly any metadata format can take advantage of the features of the toolkit, and the process of the toolkit enabling a new format is discussed. Finally, this paper intends to foster new ideas with regards to the transformation of descriptive metadata, especially using XML tools. In this paper the following conventions will be used: MARC21 will refer to MARC 21 records in the ISO 2709 record structure used today; MARCXML will refer to MARC 21 records in an XML structure.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.122-130
  3. Tosaka, Y.; Park, J.-r.: RDA: Resource description & access : a survey of the current state of the art (2013) 0.03 
    0.0338533 = product of:
  0.0677066 = sum of:
    0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020873476 = score(doc=677,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 677, 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=677)
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=677,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 677, 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=677)
    0.017640345 = weight(_text_:of in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017640345 = score(doc=677,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=677,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    Abstract
    Resource Description & Access (RDA) is intended to provide a flexible and extensible framework that can accommodate all types of content and media within rapidly evolving digital environments while also maintaining compatibility with the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2). The cataloging community is grappling with practical issues in navigating the transition from AACR2 to RDA; there is a definite need to evaluate major subject areas and broader themes in information organization under the new RDA paradigm. This article aims to accomplish this task through a thorough and critical review of the emerging RDA literature published from 2005 to 2011. The review mostly concerns key areas of difference between RDA and AACR2, the relationship of the new cataloging code to metadata standards, the impact on encoding standards such as Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), end user considerations, and practitioners' views on RDA implementation and training. Future research will require more in-depth studies of RDA's expected benefits and the manner in which the new cataloging code will improve resource retrieval and bibliographic control for users and catalogers alike over AACR2. The question as to how the cataloging community can best move forward to the post-AACR2/MARC environment must be addressed carefully so as to chart the future of bibliographic control in the evolving environment of information production, management, and use.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.651-662
  4. Cundiff, M.V.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) (2004) 0.03 
    0.030081455 = product of:
  0.08021721 = sum of:
    0.03422346 = weight(_text_:use in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03422346 = score(doc=2834,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27065295 = fieldWeight in 2834, 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=2834)
    0.023614356 = weight(_text_:of in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023614356 = score(doc=2834,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 2834, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2834)
    0.0223794 = product of:
      0.0447588 = sum of:
        0.0447588 = weight(_text_:22 in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0447588 = score(doc=2834,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2834, 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=2834)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    This article provides an introductory overview of the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard, better known as METS. It will be of most use to librarians and technical staff who are encountering METS for the first time. The article contains a brief history of the development of METS, a primer covering the basic structure and content of METS documents, and a discussion of several issues relevant to the implementation and continuing development of METS including object models, extension schemata, and application profiles.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.52-64
  5. Proffitt, M.: Pulling it all together : use of METS in RLG cultural materials service (2004) 0.03 
    0.025959475 = product of:
  0.06922527 = sum of:
    0.03422346 = weight(_text_:use in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03422346 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27065295 = fieldWeight in 767, 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=767)
    0.012622404 = weight(_text_:of in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012622404 = score(doc=767,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 767, 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=767)
    0.0223794 = product of:
      0.0447588 = sum of:
        0.0447588 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0447588 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 767, 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=767)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    RLG has used METS for a particular application, that is as a wrapper for structural metadata. When RLG cultural materials was launched, there was no single way to deal with "complex digital objects". METS provides a standard means of encoding metadata regarding the digital objects represented in RCM, and METS has now been fully integrated into the workflow for this service.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.65-68
  6. Guenther, R.S.: Using the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) for resource description : guidelines and applications (2004) 0.03 
    0.025746495 = product of:
  0.068657316 = sum of:
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 2837, 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=2837)
    0.019129815 = weight(_text_:of in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019129815 = score(doc=2837,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 2837, 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=2837)
    0.019581974 = product of:
      0.039163947 = sum of:
        0.039163947 = weight(_text_:22 in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039163947 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2837, 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=2837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    This paper describes the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS), its accompanying documentation and some of its applications. It reviews the MODS user guidelines provided by the Library of Congress and how they enable a user of the schema to consistently apply MODS as a metadata scheme. Because the schema itself could not fully document appropriate usage, the guidelines provide element definitions, history, relationships with other elements, usage conventions, and examples. Short descriptions of some MODS applications are given and a more detailed discussion of its use in the Library of Congress's Minerva project for Web archiving is given.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.89-98
  7. Cranefield, S.: Networked knowledge representation and exchange using UML and RDF (2001) 0.02 
    0.020674974 = product of:
  0.055133265 = sum of:
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=5896,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 5896, 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=5896)
    0.017463053 = weight(_text_:of in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017463053 = score(doc=5896,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
    0.007724685 = product of:
      0.01544937 = sum of:
        0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01544937 = score(doc=5896,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    This paper proposes the use of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) as a language for modelling ontologies for Web resources and the knowledge contained within them. To provide a mechanism for serialising and processing object diagrams representing knowledge, a pair of XSI-T stylesheets have been developed to map from XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) encodings of class diagrams to corresponding RDF schemas and to Java classes representing the concepts in the ontologies. The Java code includes methods for marshalling and unmarshalling object-oriented information between in-memory data structures and RDF serialisations of that information. This provides a convenient mechanism for Java applications to share knowledge on the Web
    Source
    Journal of digital information. 1(2001) no.8
  8. Lupovici, C.: ¬L'¬information secondaire du document primaire : format MARC ou SGML? (1997) 0.02 
    0.019467933 = product of:
  0.051914487 = sum of:
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=892,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 892, 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=892)
    0.011044604 = weight(_text_:of in 892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011044604 = score(doc=892,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 892, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=892)
    0.010924355 = product of:
      0.02184871 = sum of:
        0.02184871 = weight(_text_:on in 892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02184871 = score(doc=892,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 892, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=892)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Secondary information, e.g. MARC based bibliographic records, comprises structured data for identifying, tagging, retrieving and management of primary documents. SGML, the standard format for coding content and structure of primary documents, was introduced in 1986 as a publishing tool but is now being applied to bibliographic records. SGML now comprises standard definitions (DTD) for books, serials, articles and mathematical formulae. A simplified version (HTML) is used for Web pages. Pilot projects to develop SGML as a standard for bibliographic exchange include the Dublin Core, listing 13 descriptive elements for Internet documents; the French GRISELI programme using SGML for exchanging grey literature and US experiments on reformatting USMARC for use with SGML-based records
    Footnote
    Übers. des Titels: Secondary information on primary documents: MARC or SGML format?
  9. Martin, P.: Conventions and notations for knowledge representation and retrieval (2000) 0.02 
    0.016869199 = product of:
  0.04498453 = sum of:
    0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025048172 = score(doc=5070,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 5070, 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=5070)
    0.0066940407 = weight(_text_:of in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066940407 = score(doc=5070,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.103663445 = fieldWeight in 5070, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5070)
    0.013242318 = product of:
      0.026484637 = sum of:
        0.026484637 = weight(_text_:on in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026484637 = score(doc=5070,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 5070, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5070)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Much research has focused on the problem of knowledge accessibility, sharing and reuse. Specific languages (e.g. KIF, CG, RDF) and ontologies have been proposed. Common characteristics, conventions or ontological distinctions are beginning to emerge. Since knowledge providers (humans and software agents) must follow common conventions for the knowledge to be widely accessed and re-used, we propose lexical, structural, semantic and ontological conventions based on various knowledge representation projects and our own research. These are minimal conventions that can be followed by most and cover the most common knowledge representation cases. However, agreement and refinements are still required. We also show that a notation can be both readable and expressive by quickly presenting two new notations -- Formalized English (FE) and Frame-CG (FCG) - derived from the CG linear form [9] and Frame-Logics [4]. These notations support the above conventions, and are implemented in our Web-based knowledge representation and document indexation tool, WebKB¹ [7]
    Series
    Lecture notes in computer science; vol.1867: Lecture notes on artificial intelligence
    Source
    Conceptual structures: logical, linguistic, and computational issues. 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS 2000, Darmstadt, Germany, August 14-18, 2000. Ed.: B. Ganter et al
  10. Markup and metadata (1998) 0.01 
    0.0144594535 = product of:
  0.057837814 = sum of:
    0.03422346 = weight(_text_:use in 1835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03422346 = score(doc=1835,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27065295 = fieldWeight in 1835, 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=1835)
    0.023614356 = weight(_text_:of in 1835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023614356 = score(doc=1835,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 1835, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1835)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Discusses the range of applications of the XML meta language, which allows users to design their own markup language and share it with others. Instead of being confined to HTML, where 'one size fits all', industries, academic disciplines and professional organizations can use XML syntax to create a common set of tags which standardize the presentation of information. The linking abilities of XML are more powerful than HTML, so that it will support bidirectional and multiway links, as well as those to a span of text rather than to a single point
  11. METS: an overview & tutorial : Metadata Encoding & Transmission Standard (METS) (2001) 0.01 
    0.0143669695 = product of:
  0.057467878 = sum of:
    0.036299463 = weight(_text_:use in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036299463 = score(doc=1323,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2870708 = fieldWeight in 1323, 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=1323)
    0.021168415 = weight(_text_:of in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021168415 = score(doc=1323,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Maintaining a library of digital objects of necessaryy requires maintaining metadata about those objects. The metadata necessary for successful management and use of digital objeets is both more extensive than and different from the metadata used for managing collections of printed works and other physical materials. While a library may record descriptive metadata regarding a book in its collection, the book will not dissolve into a series of unconnected pages if the library fails to record structural metadata regarding the book's organization, nor will scholars be unable to evaluate the book's worth if the library fails to note that the book was produced using a Ryobi offset press. The Same cannot be said for a digital version of the saure book. Without structural metadata, the page image or text files comprising the digital work are of little use, and without technical metadata regarding the digitization process, scholars may be unsure of how accurate a reflection of the original the digital version provides. For internal management purposes, a library must have access to appropriate technical metadata in order to periodically refresh and migrate the data, ensuring the durability of valuable resources.
  12. ISO 8459: Bibliographic data element directory : Pt.1: Interloan applications (ISO 8459-1:1988). - Pt.2: Acquisition applications (ISO 8459-2:1992). - Pt.3: Information retrieval applications (ISO 8459-3:1994). - Pt.4: Circulation applications (ISO/CD 8459-4:1996) - Pt.5: Data elements for the exchange of cataloguing and metadata (ISO/DIS 8459-5:2000) (1988-) 0.01 
    0.013225921 = product of:
  0.052903686 = sum of:
    0.04174695 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04174695 = score(doc=4439,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 4439, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4439)
    0.011156735 = weight(_text_:of in 4439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011156735 = score(doc=4439,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 4439, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4439)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
  13. Guenther, R.; McCallum, S.: New metadata standards for digital resources : MODS and METS (2003) 0.01 
    0.012652023 = product of:
  0.05060809 = sum of:
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=1250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 1250, 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=1250)
    0.020662563 = weight(_text_:of in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020662563 = score(doc=1250,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Metadata has taken an a new took with the advent of XML and digital resources. XML provides a new versatile structure for tagging and packaging metadata as the rapid proliferation of digital resources demands both rapidly produced descriptive data and the encoding of more types of metadata. Two emerging standards are attempting to harness these developments for library needs. The first is the Metadata Object and Description Schema (MODS), a MARC-compatible XML schema for encoding descriptive data. The second standard is the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS), a highly flexible XML schema for packaging the descriptive metadata and various other important types of metadata needed to assure the use and preservation of digital resources.
    Source
    Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 29(2003) no.2, S.11-15
  14. El-Sherbini, M.: Metadata and the future of cataloging (2001) 0.01 
    0.010584294 = product of:
  0.042337175 = sum of:
    0.019957775 = weight(_text_:of in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019957775 = score(doc=751,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 751, 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=751)
    0.0223794 = product of:
      0.0447588 = sum of:
        0.0447588 = weight(_text_:22 in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0447588 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 751, 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=751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    This article is a survey of representative metadata efforts comparing them to MARC 21 metadata in order to determine if new electronic formats require the development of a new set of standards. This study surveys the ongoing metadata projects in order to identify what types of metadata exist and how they are used and also compares and analyzes selected metadata elements in an attempt to illustrate how they are related to MARC 21 metadata format elements.
    Date
    23. 1.2007 11:22:30
  15. Caplan, P.; Guenther, R.: Metadata for Internet resources : the Dublin Core Metadata Elements Set and its mapping to USMARC (1996) 0.01 
    0.01014366 = product of:
  0.04057464 = sum of:
    0.008925388 = weight(_text_:of in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008925388 = score(doc=2408,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 2408, 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=2408)
    0.03164925 = product of:
      0.0632985 = sum of:
        0.0632985 = weight(_text_:22 in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0632985 = score(doc=2408,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2408, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2408)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    This paper discuesses the goals and outcome of the OCLC/NCSA Metadata Workshop held March 1-3, 1995 in Dublin Ohio. The resulting proposed "Dublin Core" Metadata Elements Set is described briefly. An attempt is made to map the Dublin Core data elements to USMARC; problems and outstanding questions are noted.
    Date
    13. 1.2007 18:31:22
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.43-58
  16. Eden, B.L.: Metadata and librarianship : will MARC survive? (2004) 0.01 
    0.009677947 = product of:
  0.038711786 = sum of:
    0.019129815 = weight(_text_:of in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019129815 = score(doc=4750,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 4750, 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=4750)
    0.019581974 = product of:
      0.039163947 = sum of:
        0.039163947 = weight(_text_:22 in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039163947 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4750, 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=4750)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Metadata schema and standards are now a part of the information landscape. Librarianship has slowly realized that MARC is only one of a proliferation of metadata standards, and that MARC has many pros and cons related to its age, original conception, and biases. Should librarianship continue to promote the MARC standard? Are there better metadata standards out there that are more robust, user-friendly, and dynamic in the organization and presentation of information? This special issue examines current initiatives that are actively incorporating MARC standards and concepts into new metadata schemata, while also predicting a future where MARC may not be the metadata schema of choice for the organization and description of information.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.6-7
  17. Carvalho, J.R. de; Cordeiro, M.I.; Lopes, A.; Vieira, M.: Meta-information about MARC : an XML framework for validation, explanation and help systems (2004) 0.01 
    0.009261256 = product of:
  0.037045024 = sum of:
    0.017463053 = weight(_text_:of in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017463053 = score(doc=2848,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
    0.019581974 = product of:
      0.039163947 = sum of:
        0.039163947 = weight(_text_:22 in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039163947 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2848, 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=2848)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    This article proposes a schema for meta-information about MARC that can express at a fairly comprehensive level the syntactic and semantic aspects of MARC formats in XML, including not only rules but also all texts and examples that are conveyed by MARC documentation. It can be thought of as an XML version of the MARC or UNIMARC manuals, for both machine and human usage. The article explains how such a schema can be the central piece of a more complete framework, to be used in conjunction with "slim" record formats, providing a rich environment for the automated processing of bibliographic data.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.131-137
  18. Wisser, K.M.; O'Brien Roper, J.: Maximizing metadata : exploring the EAD-MARC relationship (2003) 0.01 
    0.007906867 = product of:
  0.03162747 = sum of:
    0.017640345 = weight(_text_:of in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017640345 = score(doc=154,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
    0.013987125 = product of:
      0.02797425 = sum of:
        0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02797425 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 154, 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=154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Encoded Archival Description (EAD) has provided a new way to approach manuscript and archival collection representation. A review of previous representational practices and problems highlights the benefits of using EAD. This new approach should be considered a partner rather than an adversary in the access providing process. Technological capabilities now allow for multiple metadata schemas to be employed in the creation of the finding aid. Crosswalks allow for MARC records to be generated from the detailed encoding of an EAD finding aid. In the process of creating these crosswalks and detailed encoding, EAD has generated more changes in traditional processes and procedures than originally imagined. The North Carolina State University (NCSU) Libraries sought to test the process of crosswalking EAD to MARC, investigating how this process used technology as well as changed physical procedures. By creating a complex and indepth EAD template for finding aids, with accompanying related encoding analogs embedded within the element structure, MARC records were generated that required minor editing and revision for inclusion in the NCSU Libraries OPAC. The creation of this bridge between EAD and MARC has stimulated theoretical discussions about the role of collaboration, technology, and expertise in the ongoing struggle to maximize access to our collections. While this study is a only a first attempt at harnessing this potential, a presentation of the tensions, struggles, and successes provides illumination to some of the larger issues facing special collections today.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  19. Kurth, M.; Ruddy, D.; Rupp, N.: Repurposing MARC metadata : using digital project experience to develop a metadata management design (2004) 0.01 
    0.007094742 = product of:
  0.028378967 = sum of:
    0.011594418 = weight(_text_:of in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011594418 = score(doc=4748,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.17955035 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
    0.016784549 = product of:
      0.033569098 = sum of:
        0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033569098 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4748, 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=4748)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Metadata and information technology staff in libraries that are building digital collections typically extract and manipulate MARC metadata sets to provide access to digital content via non-MARC schemes. Metadata processing in these libraries involves defining the relationships between metadata schemes, moving metadata between schemes, and coordinating the intellectual activity and physical resources required to create and manipulate metadata. Actively managing the non-MARC metadata resources used to build digital collections is something most of these libraries have only begun to do. This article proposes strategies for managing MARC metadata repurposing efforts as the first step in a coordinated approach to library metadata management. Guided by lessons learned from Cornell University library mapping and transformation activities, the authors apply the literature of data resource management to library metadata management and propose a model for managing MARC metadata repurposing processes through the implementation of a metadata management design.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.144-152
  20. Yee, R.; Beaubien, R.: ¬A preliminary crosswalk from METS to IMS content packaging (2004) 0.01 
    0.006562838 = product of:
  0.026251351 = sum of:
    0.009466803 = weight(_text_:of in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009466803 = score(doc=4752,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.14660224 = fieldWeight in 4752, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4752)
    0.016784549 = product of:
      0.033569098 = sum of:
        0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033569098 = score(doc=4752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4752, 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=4752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    As educational technology becomes pervasive, demand will grow for library content to be incorporated into courseware. Among the barriers impeding interoperability between libraries and educational tools is the difference in specifications commonly used for the exchange of digital objects and metadata. Among libraries, Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) is a new but increasingly popular standard; the IMS content-package (IMS-CP) plays a parallel role in educational technology. This article describes how METS-encoded library content can be converted into digital objects for IMS-compliant systems through an XSLT-based crosswalk. The conceptual models behind METS and IMS-CP are compared, the design and limitations of an XSLT-based translation are described, and the crosswalks are related to other techniques to enhance interoperability.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.69-81

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 27
  • chi 1
  • f 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 25
  • s 3
  • el 2
  • n 1
  • More… Less…

Themes