Search (47 results, page 1 of 3)

0.039021146 = product of:
  0.07804229 = sum of:
    0.048898686 = weight(_text_:services in 5133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048898686 = score(doc=5133,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 5133, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5133)
    0.029143604 = product of:
      0.058287207 = sum of:
        0.058287207 = weight(_text_:management in 5133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058287207 = score(doc=5133,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.36866072 = fieldWeight in 5133, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5133)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article presents a case study of quality management for print and electronic resource metadata, summarizing problems and solutions encountered by the Cataloging and Discovery Services Department in the George A. Smathers Libraries at the University of Florida. The authors discuss national, state, and local standards for cataloging, automated and manual record enhancements for data, user feedback, and statewide consortial factors. Findings show that adherence to standards, proactive cleanup of data via manual processes and automated tools, collaboration with vendors and stakeholders, and continual assessment of workflows are key to the management of biblio-graphic data quality in consortial academic libraries.

0.03557103 = product of:
  0.07114206 = sum of:
    0.048898686 = weight(_text_:services in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048898686 = score(doc=2606,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 2606, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2606)
    0.022243375 = product of:
      0.04448675 = sum of:
        0.04448675 = weight(_text_:22 in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04448675 = score(doc=2606,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 58(2014) no.3, S.187-208

0.030489452 = product of:
  0.060978904 = sum of:
    0.041913155 = weight(_text_:services in 2595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041913155 = score(doc=2595,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 2595, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2595)
    0.019065749 = product of:
      0.038131498 = sum of:
        0.038131498 = weight(_text_:22 in 2595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038131498 = score(doc=2595,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2595, 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=2595)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 55(2011) no.4, S.221-233

0.029956188 = product of:
  0.059912376 = sum of:
    0.039516103 = weight(_text_:services in 3336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039516103 = score(doc=3336,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.22946067 = fieldWeight in 3336, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3336)
    0.020396275 = product of:
      0.04079255 = sum of:
        0.04079255 = weight(_text_:management in 3336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04079255 = score(doc=3336,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.25800878 = fieldWeight in 3336, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3336)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This book shows you how to harness the power of linked data and web-scale discovery systems to manage and link widely varied content across your library collection. Libraries are increasingly using web-scale discovery systems to help clients find a wide assortment of library materials, including books, journal articles, special collections, archival collections, videos, music and open access collections. Depending on the library material catalogued, the discovery system might need to negotiate different metadata standards, such as AACR, RDA, RAD, FOAF, VRA Core, METS, MODS, RDF and more. In Managing Metadata in Web-Scale Discovery Systems, editor Louise Spiteri and a range of international experts show you how to: * maximize the effectiveness of web-scale discovery systems * provide a smooth and seamless discovery experience to your users * help users conduct searches that yield relevant results * manage the sheer volume of items to which you can provide access, so your users can actually find what they need * maintain shared records that reflect the needs, languages, and identities of culturally and ethnically varied communities * manage metadata both within, across, and outside, library discovery tools by converting your library metadata to linked open data that all systems can access * manage user generated metadata from external services such as Goodreads and LibraryThing * mine user generated metadata to better serve your users in areas such as collection development or readers' advisory. The book will be essential reading for cataloguers, technical services and systems librarians and library and information science students studying modules on metadata, cataloguing, systems design, data management, and digital libraries. The book will also be of interest to those managing metadata in archives, museums and other cultural heritage institutions.

LCSH

Metadata / Management

Subject

Metadata / Management

0.029788423 = product of:
  0.059576847 = sum of:
    0.041913155 = weight(_text_:services in 3896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041913155 = score(doc=3896,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 3896, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3896)
    0.017663691 = product of:
      0.035327382 = sum of:
        0.035327382 = weight(_text_:management in 3896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035327382 = score(doc=3896,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 3896, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3896)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Avalon Media System (Avalon) provides access and management for digital audio and video collections in libraries and archives. The open source project is led by the libraries of Indiana University Bloomington and Northwestern University and is funded in part by grants from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Institute of Museum and Library Services. Avalon is based on the Samvera Community (formerly Hydra Project) software stack and uses Fedora as the digital repository back end. The Avalon project team is in the process of migrating digital repositories from Fedora 3 to Fedora 4 and incorporating metadata statements using the Resource Description Framework (RDF) instead of XML files accompanying the digital objects in the repository. The Avalon team has worked on the migration path for technical metadata and is now working on the migration paths for structural metadata (PCDM) and descriptive metadata (from MODS XML to RDF). This paper covers the decisions made to begin using RDF for software development and offers a window into how Semantic Web technology functions in the real world.

0.025407877 = product of:
  0.050815754 = sum of:
    0.03492763 = weight(_text_:services in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03492763 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 3524, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3524)
    0.015888125 = product of:
      0.03177625 = sum of:
        0.03177625 = weight(_text_:22 in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03177625 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = 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(2/4)

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

0.022297796 = product of:
  0.04459559 = sum of:
    0.027942104 = weight(_text_:services in 5134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027942104 = score(doc=5134,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.1622532 = fieldWeight in 5134, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5134)
    0.016653487 = product of:
      0.033306975 = sum of:
        0.033306975 = weight(_text_:management in 5134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033306975 = score(doc=5134,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.21066327 = fieldWeight in 5134, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5134)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Metadata research has emerged as a discipline cross-cutting many domains, focused on the provision of distributed descriptions (often called annotations) to Web resources or applications. Such associated descriptions are supposed to serve as a foundation for advanced services in many application areas, including search and location, personalization, federation of repositories and automated delivery of information. Indeed, the Semantic Web is in itself a concrete technological framework for ontology-based metadata. For example, Web-based social networking requires metadata describing people and their interrelations, and large databases with biological information use complex and detailed metadata schemas for more precise and informed search strategies. There is a wide diversity in the languages and idioms used for providing meta-descriptions, from simple structured text in metadata schemas to formal annotations using ontologies, and the technologies for storing, sharing and exploiting meta-descriptions are also diverse and evolve rapidly. In addition, there is a proliferation of schemas and standards related to metadata, resulting in a complex and moving technological landscape - hence, the need for specialized knowledge and skills in this area. The Handbook of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies is intended as an authoritative reference for students, practitioners and researchers, serving as a roadmap for the variety of metadata schemas and ontologies available in a number of key domain areas, including culture, biology, education, healthcare, engineering and library science.

LCSH

Database management

Subject

Database management

0.014818538 = product of:
  0.059274152 = sum of:
    0.059274152 = weight(_text_:services in 1581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059274152 = score(doc=1581,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.344191 = fieldWeight in 1581, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1581)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

One of the key aspects of the approaching data-intensive science era is integration of data through interoperability of systems providing data products or visualisation and processing services. Far from being simple, interoperability requires robust and scalable e-infrastructures capable of supporting it. In this work we present the case of EPOS, a project for data integration in the field of Earth Sciences. We describe the design of its e-infrastructure and show its main characteristics. One of the main elements enabling the system to integrate data, data products and services is the metadata catalog based on the CERIF metadata model. Such a model, modified to fit into the general e-infrastructure design, is part of a three-layer metadata architecture. CERIF guarantees a robust handling of metadata, which is in this case the key to the interoperability and to one of the feature of the EPOS system: the possibility of carrying on data intensive science orchestrating the distributed resources made available by EPOS data providers and stakeholders.

0.013971052 = product of:
  0.05588421 = sum of:
    0.05588421 = weight(_text_:services in 5142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05588421 = score(doc=5142,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.3245064 = fieldWeight in 5142, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5142)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In 2015, the Cataloging and Metadata Services department of Rice University's Fondren Library developed a process to reconcile four years of authority headings against an internally developed thesaurus. With a goal of immediate cleanup as well as an ongoing maintenance procedure, staff developed a "hack" of OpenRefine's normal Reconciliation function that ultimately yielded 99.6% authority reconciliation and a stable process for monthly data verification.

0.012224671 = product of:
  0.048898686 = sum of:
    0.048898686 = weight(_text_:services in 5280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048898686 = score(doc=5280,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 5280, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5280)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.010478289 = product of:
  0.041913155 = sum of:
    0.041913155 = weight(_text_:services in 1589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041913155 = score(doc=1589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 1589, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1589)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Integration of library data into the Linked Data environment is a key issue in libraries and is approached on the basis of interoperability between library data conceptual models. Achieving interoperability for different representations of the same or related entities between the library and cultural heritage domains shall enhance rich bibliographic data reusability and support the development of new data-driven information services. This paper aims to contribute to the desired interoperability by attempting to map core semantic paths between the BIBFRAME and EDM conceptual models. BIBFRAME is developed by the Library of Congress to support transformation of legacy library data in MARC format into linked data. EDM is the model developed for and used in the Europeana Cultural Heritage aggregation portal.

0.010478289 = product of:
  0.041913155 = sum of:
    0.041913155 = weight(_text_:services in 2883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041913155 = score(doc=2883,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 2883, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2883)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library resources and technical services. 60(2016) no.2, S.89-98

0.010478289 = product of:
  0.041913155 = sum of:
    0.041913155 = weight(_text_:services in 3523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041913155 = score(doc=3523,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 3523, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3523)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

On December 12, 2016, Carl Stahmer and MacKenzie Smith presented at the CNI Members Fall Meeting about the BIBFLOW project, self-described on Twitter as "a two-year project of the UC Davis University Library and Zepheira investigating the future of library technical services." In her opening remarks, Ms. Smith, University Librarian at UC Davis, stated that one of the goals of the project was to devise a roadmap "to get from where we are today, which is kind of the 1970s with a little lipstick on it, to 2020, which is where we're going to be very soon." The notion that where libraries are today is somehow behind the times is one of the commonly heard rationales behind a move to linked data. Stated more precisely: - Libraries devote considerable time and resources to producing high-quality bibliographic metadata - This metadata is stored in unconnected silos - This metadata is in a format (MARC) that is incompatible with technologies of the emerging Semantic Web - The visibility of library metadata is diminished as a result of the two points above Are these assertions true? If yes, is linked data the solution?

0.00892337 = product of:
  0.03569348 = sum of:
    0.03569348 = product of:
      0.07138696 = sum of:
        0.07138696 = weight(_text_:management in 4202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07138696 = score(doc=4202,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.45151538 = fieldWeight in 4202, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Dieser Artikel stellt ein konzeptionelles Metadatenmodell vor, das auf Records verschiedener Medientypen anwendbar ist. Organisationen, die im Zuge ihrer Tätigkeit regelmäßig sowohl textbasierte als auch audiovisuelle Records erstellen, haben beide Medien im Sinne des Records Management zu verwalten. Dazu sind Metadaten, einschließlich der des zentralen Ordnungssystems für Records, ein Hauptwerkzeug. Inspiriert durch medienübergreifende, auf gemeinsamen Zugriff ausgerichtete Metadatenmodelle, wird ein neues Modell vorgeschlagen. Es kombiniert die hierarchische Abstraktion der existierenden Modelle mit den Prinzipien des Records Management. Das Modell kann Organisationen dabei helfen, Entscheidungen über Metadaten für ihre Records zu treffen.

0.008731907 = product of:
  0.03492763 = sum of:
    0.03492763 = weight(_text_:services in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03492763 = score(doc=865,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.008731907 = product of:
  0.03492763 = sum of:
    0.03492763 = weight(_text_:services in 3372) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03492763 = score(doc=3372,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 3372, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3372)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Europeana provides access to more than 54 million cultural heritage objects through its portal Europeana Collections. It is crucial for Europeana to be recognized by search engines as a trusted authoritative repository of cultural heritage objects. Indeed, even though its portal is the main entry point, most Europeana users come to it via search engines. Europeana Collections is fuelled by metadata describing cultural objects, represented in the Europeana Data Model (EDM). This paper presents the research and consequent recommendations for publishing Europeana metadata using the Schema.org vocabulary and best practices. Schema.org html embedded metadata to be consumed by search engines to power rich services (such as Google Knowledge Graph). Schema.org is an open and widely adopted initiative (used by over 12 million domains) backed by Google, Bing, Yahoo!, and Yandex, for sharing metadata across the web It underpins the emergence of new web techniques, such as so called Semantic SEO. Our research addressed the representation of the embedded metadata as part of the Europeana HTML pages and sitemaps so that the re-use of this data can be optimized. The practical objective of our work is to produce a Schema.org representation of Europeana resources described in EDM, being the richest as possible and tailored to Europeana's realities and user needs as well the search engines and their users.

0.007944062 = product of:
  0.03177625 = sum of:
    0.03177625 = product of:
      0.0635525 = sum of:
        0.0635525 = weight(_text_:22 in 3280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0635525 = score(doc=3280,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou

0.007944062 = product of:
  0.03177625 = sum of:
    0.03177625 = product of:
      0.0635525 = sum of:
        0.0635525 = weight(_text_:22 in 3281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0635525 = score(doc=3281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3281, 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=3281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou

0.007944062 = product of:
  0.03177625 = sum of:
    0.03177625 = product of:
      0.0635525 = sum of:
        0.0635525 = weight(_text_:22 in 3282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0635525 = score(doc=3282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3282, 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=3282)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou

0.0063738357 = product of:
  0.025495343 = sum of:
    0.025495343 = product of:
      0.050990686 = sum of:
        0.050990686 = weight(_text_:management in 2086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050990686 = score(doc=2086,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.32251096 = fieldWeight in 2086, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2086)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Information resource attributes - metadata for information retrieval - metadata sources and quality - economics and management of metadata - knowledge organization systems - the semantic web - books and e-books, websites and audiovisual resources - business and government documents - learning resources - the field of information/knowledge organization.

RSWK

Metadaten / Management (BVB)

Subject

Metadaten / Management (BVB)