Search (118 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Ruhl, M.: Do we need metadata? : an on-line survey in German archives (2012) 0.07 
    0.073057234 = product of:
  0.19481929 = sum of:
    0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025667597 = score(doc=471,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 471, 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=471)
    0.014968331 = weight(_text_:of in 471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014968331 = score(doc=471,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 471, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=471)
    0.15418336 = sum of:
      0.032436922 = weight(_text_:on in 471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032436922 = score(doc=471,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.35714048 = fieldWeight in 471, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=471)
      0.12174644 = weight(_text_:line in 471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12174644 = score(doc=471,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.52573526 = fieldWeight in 471, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=471)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    The paper summarizes the results of an on-line survey which was executed 2010 in german archives of all branches. The survey focused on metadata and used metadata standards for the annotation of audiovisual media like pictures, audio and video files (analog and digital). The findings motivate the question whether archives are able to collaborate in projects like europeana if they do not use accepted standards for their orientation. Archives need more resources and archival staff need more training to execute more complex tasks in an digital and semantic surrounding.
    Source
    Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Semantic Digital Archives held in conjunction with the 16th Int. Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (TPDL) on September 27, 2012 in Paphos, Cyprus [http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-912/proceedings.pdf]. Eds.: A. Mitschik et al
  2. Haynes, D.: Metadata for information management and retrieval : understanding metadata and its use (2018) 0.06 
    0.05841642 = product of:
  0.11683284 = sum of:
    0.06135524 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06135524 = score(doc=4096,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 4096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025667597 = score(doc=4096,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.023188837 = weight(_text_:of in 4096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023188837 = score(doc=4096,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.006621159 = product of:
      0.013242318 = sum of:
        0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 4096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013242318 = score(doc=4096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 4096, 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=4096)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    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
  3. Cho, H.; Donovan, A.; Lee, J.H.: Art in an algorithm : a taxonomy for describing video game visual styles (2018) 0.06 
    0.057954654 = product of:
  0.092727445 = sum of:
    0.029519552 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029519552 = score(doc=4218,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.02231347 = weight(_text_:of in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02231347 = score(doc=4218,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013987125 = product of:
      0.02797425 = sum of:
        0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02797425 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.625 = coord(5/8)
    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
  4. Roux, M.: Metadata for search engines : what can be learned from e-Sciences? (2012) 0.06 
    0.056946788 = product of:
  0.113893576 = sum of:
    0.035423465 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035423465 = score(doc=96,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 96, 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=96)
    0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025667597 = score(doc=96,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 96, 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=96)
    0.014968331 = weight(_text_:of in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014968331 = score(doc=96,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 96, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=96)
    0.037834182 = product of:
      0.075668365 = sum of:
        0.075668365 = weight(_text_:computers in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.075668365 = score(doc=96,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21710795 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.34852874 = fieldWeight in 96, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=96)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    Abstract
    E-sciences are data-intensive sciences that make a large use of the Web to share, collect, and process data. In this context, primary scientific data is becoming a new challenging issue as data must be extensively described (1) to account for empiric conditions and results that allow interpretation and/or analyses and (2) to be understandable by computers used for data storage and information retrieval. With this respect, metadata is a focal point whatever it is considered from the point of view of the user to visualize and exploit data as well as this of the search tools to find and retrieve information. Numerous disciplines are concerned with the issues of describing complex observations and addressing pertinent knowledge. In this paper, similarities and differences in data description and exploration strategies among disciplines in e-sciences are examined.
    Source
    Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a
  5. Peters, I.; Stock, W.G.: Power tags in information retrieval (2010) 0.05 
    0.047385883 = product of:
  0.094771765 = sum of:
    0.051129367 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051129367 = score(doc=865,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=865,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.0167351 = weight(_text_:of in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0167351 = score(doc=865,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=865,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    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.
  6. Gursoy, A.; Wickett, K.; Feinberg, M.: Understanding tag functions in a moderated, user-generated metadata ecosystem (2018) 0.04 
    0.039122794 = product of:
  0.07824559 = sum of:
    0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020873476 = score(doc=3946,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3946, 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=3946)
    0.030249555 = weight(_text_:use in 3946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030249555 = score(doc=3946,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23922569 = fieldWeight in 3946, 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=3946)
    0.021604925 = weight(_text_:of in 3946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021604925 = score(doc=3946,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 3946, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3946)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 3946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=3946,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 3946, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate tag use in a metadata ecosystem that supports a fan work repository to identify functions of tags and explore the system as a co-constructed communicative context. Design/methodology/approach Using modified techniques from grounded theory (Charmaz, 2007), this paper integrates humanistic and social science methods to identify kinds of tag use in a rich setting. Findings Three primary roles of tags emerge out of detailed study of the metadata ecosystem: tags can identify elements in the fan work, tags can reflect on how those elements are used or adapted in the fan work, and finally, tags can express the fan author's sense of her role in the discursive context of the fan work repository. Attending to each of the tag roles shifts focus away from just what tags say to include how they say it. Practical implications Instead of building metadata systems designed solely for retrieval or description, this research suggests that it may be fruitful to build systems that recognize various metadata functions and allow for expressivity. This research also suggests that attending to metadata previously considered unusable in systems may reflect the participants' sense of the system and their role within it. Originality/value In addition to accommodating a wider range of tag functions, this research implies consideration of metadata ecosystems, where different kinds of tags do different things and work together to create a multifaceted artifact.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 74(2018) no.3, S.490-508
  7. White, H.: Examining scientific vocabulary : mapping controlled vocabularies with free text keywords (2013) 0.04 
    0.03717823 = product of:
  0.07435646 = sum of:
    0.03422346 = weight(_text_:use in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03422346 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.008925388 = weight(_text_:of in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008925388 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.008828212 = product of:
      0.017656423 = sum of:
        0.017656423 = weight(_text_:on in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017656423 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0223794 = product of:
      0.0447588 = sum of:
        0.0447588 = weight(_text_:22 in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0447588 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    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. White, M.: ¬The value of taxonomies, thesauri and metadata in enterprise search (2016) 0.04 
    0.03668788 = product of:
  0.07337576 = sum of:
    0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020873476 = score(doc=2964,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2964, 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=2964)
    0.030249555 = weight(_text_:use in 2964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030249555 = score(doc=2964,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23922569 = fieldWeight in 2964, 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=2964)
    0.0167351 = weight(_text_:of in 2964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0167351 = score(doc=2964,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 2964, 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=2964)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 2964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=2964,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2964, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2964)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    Abstract
    Although the technical, mathematical and linguistic principles of search date back to the early 1960s and enterprise search applications have been commercially available since the 1980s; it is only since the launch of Microsoft SharePoint 2010 and the integration of the Apache Lucene and Solr projects in 2010 that there has been a wider adoption of enterprise search applications. Surveys carried out over the last five years indicate that although enterprises accept that search applications are essential in locating information, there has not been any significant investment in search teams to support these applications. Where taxonomies, thesauri and metadata have been used to improve the search user interface and enhance the search experience, the indications are that levels of search satisfaction are significantly higher. The challenges faced by search managers in developing and maintaining these tools include a lack of published research on the use of these tools and difficulty in recruiting search team members with the requisite skills and experience. There would seem to be an important and immediate opportunity to bring together the research, knowledge organization and enterprise search communities to explore how good practice in the use of taxonomies, thesauri and metadata in enterprise search can be established, enhanced and promoted.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Special issue: The Great Debate: "This House Believes that the Traditional Thesaurus has no Place in Modern Information Retrieval." [19 February 2015, 14:00-17:30 preceded by ISKO UK AGM and followed by networking, wine and nibbles; vgl.: http://www.iskouk.org/content/great-debate].
  9. Strobel, S.; Marín-Arraiza, P.: Metadata for scientific audiovisual media : current practices and perspectives of the TIB / AV-portal (2015) 0.04 
    0.03610243 = product of:
  0.07220486 = sum of:
    0.029519552 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029519552 = score(doc=3667,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 3667, 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=3667)
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 3667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=3667,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 3667, 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=3667)
    0.015778005 = weight(_text_:of in 3667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015778005 = score(doc=3667,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 3667, 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=3667)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 3667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=3667,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 3667, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3667)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    Abstract
    Descriptive metadata play a key role in finding relevant search results in large amounts of unstructured data. However, current scientific audiovisual media are provided with little metadata, which makes them hard to find, let alone individual sequences. In this paper, the TIB / AV-Portal is presented as a use case where methods concerning the automatic generation of metadata, a semantic search and cross-lingual retrieval (German/English) have already been applied. These methods result in a better discoverability of the scientific audiovisual media hosted in the portal. Text, speech, and image content of the video are automatically indexed by specialised GND (Gemeinsame Normdatei) subject headings. A semantic search is established based on properties of the GND ontology. The cross-lingual retrieval uses English 'translations' that were derived by an ontology mapping (DBpedia i. a.). Further ways of increasing the discoverability and reuse of the metadata are publishing them as Linked Open Data and interlinking them with other data sets.
  10. 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
  11. Belém, F.M.; Almeida, J.M.; Gonçalves, M.A.: ¬A survey on tag recommendation methods : a review (2017) 0.03 
    0.030978687 = product of:
  0.061957374 = sum of:
    0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020873476 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3524, 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=3524)
    0.014758972 = weight(_text_:of in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014758972 = score(doc=3524,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 3524, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3524)
    0.012337802 = product of:
      0.024675604 = sum of:
        0.024675604 = weight(_text_:on in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024675604 = score(doc=3524,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.271686 = fieldWeight in 3524, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3524)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013987125 = product of:
      0.02797425 = sum of:
        0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02797425 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3524, 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=3524)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    Abstract
    Tags (keywords freely assigned by users to describe web content) have become highly popular on Web 2.0 applications, because of the strong stimuli and easiness for users to create and describe their own content. This increase in tag popularity has led to a vast literature on tag recommendation methods. These methods aim at assisting users in the tagging process, possibly increasing the quality of the generated tags and, consequently, improving the quality of the information retrieval (IR) services that rely on tags as data sources. Regardless of the numerous and diversified previous studies on tag recommendation, to our knowledge, no previous work has summarized and organized them into a single survey article. In this article, we propose a taxonomy for tag recommendation methods, classifying them according to the target of the recommendations, their objectives, exploited data sources, and underlying techniques. Moreover, we provide a critical overview of these methods, pointing out their advantages and disadvantages. Finally, we describe the main open challenges related to the field, such as tag ambiguity, cold start, and evaluation issues.
    Date
    16.11.2017 13:30:22
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.4, S.830-844
  12. Kopácsi, S. et al.: Development of a classification server to support metadata harmonization in a long term preservation system (2016) 0.03 
    0.030329227 = product of:
  0.08087794 = sum of:
    0.04174695 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04174695 = score(doc=3280,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 3280, 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=3280)
    0.011156735 = weight(_text_:of in 3280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011156735 = score(doc=3280,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 3280, 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=3280)
    0.02797425 = product of:
      0.0559485 = sum of:
        0.0559485 = weight(_text_:22 in 3280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0559485 = score(doc=3280,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3280, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3280)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  13. What is Schema.org? (2011) 0.03 
    0.02783673 = product of:
  0.07423128 = sum of:
    0.044457585 = weight(_text_:use in 4437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044457585 = score(doc=4437,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.35158852 = fieldWeight in 4437, 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=4437)
    0.014968331 = weight(_text_:of in 4437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014968331 = score(doc=4437,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 4437, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4437)
    0.014805362 = product of:
      0.029610723 = sum of:
        0.029610723 = weight(_text_:on in 4437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029610723 = score(doc=4437,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.32602316 = fieldWeight in 4437, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4437)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    This site provides a collection of schemas, i.e., html tags, that webmasters can use to markup their pages in ways recognized by major search providers. Search engines including Bing, Google and Yahoo! rely on this markup to improve the display of search results, making it easier for people to find the right web pages. Many sites are generated from structured data, which is often stored in databases. When this data is formatted into HTML, it becomes very difficult to recover the original structured data. Many applications, especially search engines, can benefit greatly from direct access to this structured data. On-page markup enables search engines to understand the information on web pages and provide richer search results in order to make it easier for users to find relevant information on the web. Markup can also enable new tools and applications that make use of the structure. A shared markup vocabulary makes easier for webmasters to decide on a markup schema and get the maximum benefit for their efforts. So, in the spirit of sitemaps.org, Bing, Google and Yahoo! have come together to provide a shared collection of schemas that webmasters can use.
  14. Martins, S. de Castro: Modelo conceitual de ecossistema semântico de informações corporativas para aplicação em objetos multimídia (2019) 0.03 
    0.027630564 = product of:
  0.055261128 = sum of:
    0.016698781 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016698781 = score(doc=117,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 117, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=117)
    0.01711173 = weight(_text_:use in 117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01711173 = score(doc=117,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.13532647 = fieldWeight in 117, 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=117)
    0.012622404 = weight(_text_:of in 117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012622404 = score(doc=117,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 117, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=117)
    0.008828212 = product of:
      0.017656423 = sum of:
        0.017656423 = weight(_text_:on in 117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017656423 = score(doc=117,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 117, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=117)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    Abstract
    Information management in corporate environments is a growing problem as companies' information assets grow and their need to use them in their operations. Several management models have been practiced with application on the most diverse fronts, practices that integrate the so-called Enterprise Content Management. This study proposes a conceptual model of semantic corporate information ecosystem, based on the Universal Document Model proposed by Dagobert Soergel. It focuses on unstructured information objects, especially multimedia, increasingly used in corporate environments, adding semantics and expanding their recovery potential in the composition and reuse of dynamic documents on demand. The proposed model considers stable elements in the organizational environment, such as actors, processes, business metadata and information objects, as well as some basic infrastructures of the corporate information environment. The main objective is to establish a conceptual model that adds semantic intelligence to information assets, leveraging pre-existing infrastructure in organizations, integrating and relating objects to other objects, actors and business processes. The approach methodology considered the state of the art of Information Organization, Representation and Retrieval, Organizational Content Management and Semantic Web technologies, in the scientific literature, as bases for the establishment of an integrative conceptual model. Therefore, the research will be qualitative and exploratory. The predicted steps of the model are: Environment, Data Type and Source Definition, Data Distillation, Metadata Enrichment, and Storage. As a result, in theoretical terms the extended model allows to process heterogeneous and unstructured data according to the established cut-outs and through the processes listed above, allowing value creation in the composition of dynamic information objects, with semantic aggregations to metadata.
  15. Metadata and semantics research : 9th Research Conference, MTSR 2015, Manchester, UK, September 9-11, 2015, Proceedings (2015) 0.02 
    0.024861455 = product of:
  0.06629721 = sum of:
    0.04338471 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04338471 = score(doc=3274,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 3274, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3274)
    0.0066940407 = weight(_text_:of in 3274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066940407 = score(doc=3274,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.103663445 = fieldWeight in 3274, 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=3274)
    0.016218461 = product of:
      0.032436922 = sum of:
        0.032436922 = weight(_text_:on in 3274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032436922 = score(doc=3274,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.35714048 = fieldWeight in 3274, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3274)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    This book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 9th Metadata and Semantics Research Conference, MTSR 2015, held in Manchester, UK, in September 2015. The 35 full papers and 3 short papers presented together with 2 poster papers were carefully reviewed and selected from 76 submissions.
    Content
    The papers are organized in several sessions and tracks: general track on ontology evolution, engineering, and frameworks, semantic Web and metadata extraction, modelling, interoperability and exploratory search, data analysis, reuse and visualization; track on digital libraries, information retrieval, linked and social data; track on metadata and semantics for open repositories, research information systems and data infrastructure; track on metadata and semantics for agriculture, food and environment; track on metadata and semantics for cultural collections and applications; track on European and national projects.
    LCSH
    Information storage and retrieval systems
    Subject
    Information storage and retrieval systems
  16. Ilik, V.; Storlien, J.; Olivarez, J.: Metadata makeover (2014) 0.02 
    0.02271454 = product of:
  0.060572106 = sum of:
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=2606,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 2606, 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=2606)
    0.011044604 = weight(_text_:of in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011044604 = score(doc=2606,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 2606, 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=2606)
    0.019581974 = product of:
      0.039163947 = sum of:
        0.039163947 = weight(_text_:22 in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039163947 = score(doc=2606,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2606, 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=2606)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Catalogers have become fluent in information technology such as web design skills, HyperText Markup Language (HTML), Cascading Stylesheets (CSS), eXensible Markup Language (XML), and programming languages. The knowledge gained from learning information technology can be used to experiment with methods of transforming one metadata schema into another using various software solutions. This paper will discuss the use of eXtensible Stylesheet Language Transformations (XSLT) for repurposing, editing, and reformatting metadata. Catalogers have the requisite skills for working with any metadata schema, and if they are excluded from metadata work, libraries are wasting a valuable human resource.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  17. Fidler, B.; Acker, A.: Metadata, infrastructure, and computer-mediated communication in historical perspective (2017) 0.02 
    0.02203777 = product of:
  0.058767386 = sum of:
    0.030249555 = weight(_text_:use in 3346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030249555 = score(doc=3346,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23922569 = fieldWeight in 3346, 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=3346)
    0.023000197 = weight(_text_:of in 3346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023000197 = score(doc=3346,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 3346, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3346)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 3346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=3346,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 3346, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3346)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    In this paper we describe the creation and use of metadata on the early Arpanet as part of normal network function. By using the Arpanet Host-Host Protocol and its sockets as an entry point for studying the generation of metadata, we show that the development and function of key Arpanet infrastructure can be studied by examining the creation and stabilization of metadata. More specifically, we use the Host-Host Protocol's sockets as an example of something that, at the level of the network, functions as both network infrastructure and metadata simultaneously. By presenting the function of sockets in tandem with an overview of the Host-Host Protocol, we argue for the further integrated study of infrastructure and metadata. Finally, we reintroduce the concept of infradata to refer specifically to data that locate data throughout an infrastructure and are required by the infrastructure to function, separating them from established and stabilized standards. We argue for the future application of infradata as a concept for the study of histories and political economies of networks, bridging the largely library and information science (LIS) study of metadata with the largely science and technology studies (STS) domain of infrastructure.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.2, S.412-422
  18. Metadata and semantics research : 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings (2016) 0.02 
    0.02123046 = product of:
  0.056614555 = sum of:
    0.029222867 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029222867 = score(doc=3283,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 3283, 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=3283)
    0.0078097144 = weight(_text_:of in 3283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0078097144 = score(doc=3283,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.120940685 = fieldWeight in 3283, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3283)
    0.019581974 = product of:
      0.039163947 = sum of:
        0.039163947 = weight(_text_:22 in 3283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039163947 = score(doc=3283,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3283, 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=3283)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    This book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 10th Metadata and Semantics Research Conference, MTSR 2016, held in Göttingen, Germany, in November 2016. The 26 full papers and 6 short papers presented were carefully reviewed and selected from 67 submissions. The papers are organized in several sessions and tracks: Digital Libraries, Information Retrieval, Linked and Social Data, Metadata and Semantics for Open Repositories, Research Information Systems and Data Infrastructures, Metadata and Semantics for Agriculture, Food and Environment, Metadata and Semantics for Cultural Collections and Applications, European and National Projects.
  19. Grün, S.; Poley, C: Statistische Analysen von Semantic Entities aus Metadaten- und Volltextbeständen von German Medical Science (2017) 0.02 
    0.020201609 = product of:
  0.053870954 = sum of:
    0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025048172 = score(doc=5032,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 5032, 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=5032)
    0.022201622 = weight(_text_:of in 5032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022201622 = score(doc=5032,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 5032, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5032)
    0.006621159 = product of:
      0.013242318 = sum of:
        0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 5032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013242318 = score(doc=5032,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 5032, 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=5032)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    This paper analyzes the information content of metadata and full texts in German Medical Science (GMS) articles in English language. The object of the study is to compare semantic entities that are used to enrich GMS metadata (titles and abstracts) and GMS full texts. The aim of the study is to test whether using full texts increases the value added information. The comparison and evaluation of semantic entities was done statistically. Measures of descriptive statistics were gathered for this purpose. In addition to the ratio of central tendencies and scatterings, we computed the overlaps and complements of the values. The results show a distinct increase of information when full texts are added. On average, metadata contain 25 different entities and full texts 215. 89% of the concepts in the metadata are also represented in the full texts. Hence, 11% of the metadata concepts are found in the metadata only. In summary, the results show that the addition of full texts increases the informational value, e.g. for information retrieval processes.
  20. Gartner, R.: Metadata : shaping knowledge from antiquity to the semantic web (2016) 0.02 
    0.018673558 = product of:
  0.049796157 = sum of:
    0.029519552 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029519552 = score(doc=731,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 731, 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=731)
    0.014758972 = weight(_text_:of in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014758972 = score(doc=731,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=731,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    This book offers a comprehensive guide to the world of metadata, from its origins in the ancient cities of the Middle East, to the Semantic Web of today. The author takes us on a journey through the centuries-old history of metadata up to the modern world of crowdsourcing and Google, showing how metadata works and what it is made of. The author explores how it has been used ideologically and how it can never be objective. He argues how central it is to human cultures and the way they develop. Metadata: Shaping Knowledge from Antiquity to the Semantic Web is for all readers with an interest in how we humans organize our knowledge and why this is important. It is suitable for those new to the subject as well as those know its basics. It also makes an excellent introduction for students of information science and librarianship.
    LCSH
    Information storage and retrieval
    Subject
    Information storage and retrieval

Authors

Languages

  • e 114
  • d 3
  • pt 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 99
  • el 18
  • m 13
  • s 7
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications