Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.067204624 = product of:
  0.13440925 = sum of:
    0.0852938 = weight(_text_:reference in 6062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0852938 = score(doc=6062,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.44949555 = fieldWeight in 6062, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6062)
    0.049115453 = product of:
      0.098230906 = sum of:
        0.098230906 = weight(_text_:services in 6062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098230906 = score(doc=6062,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.5736517 = fieldWeight in 6062, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6062)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The use of various Internet services by library cataloguers and subject classifiers is discussed, with special reference to Scotland and the remainder of the United Kingdom. Services include e-mail, FTP, and Websites

0.030870736 = product of:
  0.12348294 = sum of:
    0.12348294 = sum of:
      0.0918866 = weight(_text_:services in 4066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0918866 = score(doc=4066,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04664141 = queryNorm
          0.536602 = fieldWeight in 4066, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4066)
      0.031596337 = weight(_text_:22 in 4066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031596337 = score(doc=4066,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04664141 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4066, 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=4066)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The focus of this paper is the provision of terminology- and classification-based terminologies interoperability data via web services, initially using interoperability data based on the use of a Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) spine, but with an aim to explore other possibilities in time, including the use of other spines. The High-Level Thesaurus Project (HILT) Phase IV developed pilot web services based on SRW/U, SOAP, and SKOS to deliver machine-readable terminology and crossterminology mappings data likely to be useful to information services wishing to enhance their subject search or browse services. It also developed an associated toolkit to help information services technical staff to embed HILT-related functionality within service interfaces. Several UK information services have created illustrative user interface enhancements using HILT functionality and these will demonstrate what is possible. HILT currently has the following subject schemes mounted and available: DDC, CAB, GCMD, HASSET, IPSV, LCSH, MeSH, NMR, SCAS, UNESCO, and AAT. It also has high level mappings between some of these schemes and DDC and some deeper pilot mappings available.

Date

6. 1.2011 19:22:48

0.016080156 = product of:
  0.064320624 = sum of:
    0.064320624 = product of:
      0.12864125 = sum of:
        0.12864125 = weight(_text_:services in 1805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12864125 = score(doc=1805,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.7512428 = fieldWeight in 1805, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1805)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper describes the basic concepts of terminology services and their role in information retrieval interfaces. Terminology services are consumed by other software applications using machine-to-machine protocols, rather than directly by end-users. An example of a terminology service is the pilot developed by the High Level Thesaurus (HILT) project which has successfully demonstrated its potential for enhancing subject retrieval in operational services. Examples of enhancements in three such services are given. The paper discusses the future development of terminology services in relation to the Semantic Web.

0.014926414 = product of:
  0.059705656 = sum of:
    0.059705656 = weight(_text_:reference in 5751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059705656 = score(doc=5751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.31464687 = fieldWeight in 5751, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5751)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article presents a case study of RIMMF, a software tool developed to improve the orientation and training of catalogers who use Resource Description and Access (RDA) to maintain bibliographic data. The cataloging guidance and instructions of RDA are based on the Functional Requirements conceptual models that are now consolidated in the IFLA Library Reference Model, but many catalogers are applying RDA in systems that have evolved from inventory and text-processing applications developed from older metadata paradigms. The article describes how RIMMF interacts with the RDA Toolkit and RDA Registry to offer cataloger-friendly multilingual data input and editing interfaces.

0.010661725 = product of:
  0.0426469 = sum of:
    0.0426469 = weight(_text_:reference in 651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0426469 = score(doc=651,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 651, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=651)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper describes recent work on registering Resource Description Framework (RDF) versions of the entities and relationships from the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD) models developed by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). FRBR was developed several years before FRAD, and is under-developed in areas which FRAD was expected to cover; FRAD therefore makes significance reference to FRBR. Similarly, FRAD leaves a full treatment of subject authority data to the ongoing development of Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) which was finalised during 2010. Although the FRBR Review Group is charged with consolidating all three models in due course, the RDF versions of FRBR, FRAD, and FRSAD are being created in separate namespaces, with a separate Web Ontology Language (OWL) ontology to connect the three models. The paper discusses interoperability issues arising from this work. Such issues include class definitions and sub-classes, reciprocal properties, and disjoint classes and properties. The paper discusses similar work on the International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD), also maintained by IFLA, and related issues arising from the RDF representation of the metadata element set of RDA: resource description and access, which is based on the FRBR and FRAD models. The work is ongoing, and the paper updates the original conference presentation to the end of October 2010.

0.009823091 = product of:
  0.039292365 = sum of:
    0.039292365 = product of:
      0.07858473 = sum of:
        0.07858473 = weight(_text_:services in 2164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07858473 = score(doc=2164,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.45892134 = fieldWeight in 2164, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The paper discusses practical methods of apply DDC to digital library services arising from recent technical developments. These include the use of DDC summaries to create hierarchical browsing and tag cloud interfaces, the utility of DDC as a switching language between different subject heading and classification schemes, and the development of terminology servers for interoperability with digital libraries. The focus is on services based in Europe.

0.00852938 = product of:
  0.03411752 = sum of:
    0.03411752 = weight(_text_:reference in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03411752 = score(doc=3965,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.17979822 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper describes recent initiatives to make standard library metadata models and structures available to the Semantic Web, including IFLA standards such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), and International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) along with the infrastructure that supports them. The FRBR Review Group is currently developing representations of FRAD and the entityrelationship model of FRBR in resource description framework (RDF) applications, using a combination of RDF, RDF Schema (RDFS), Simple Knowledge Organisation System (SKOS) and Web Ontology Language (OWL), cross-relating both models where appropriate. The ISBD/XML Task Group is investigating the representation of ISBD in RDF. The IFLA Namespaces project is developing an administrative and technical infrastructure to support such initiatives and encourage uptake of standards by other agencies. The paper describes similar initiatives with related external standards such as RDA - resource description and access, REICAT (the new Italian cataloguing rules) and CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM). The DCMI RDA Task Group is working with the Joint Steering Committee for RDA to develop Semantic Web representations of RDA structural elements, which are aligned with FRBR and FRAD, and controlled metadata content vocabularies. REICAT is also based on FRBR, and an object-oriented version of FRBR has been integrated with CRM, which itself has an RDF representation. CRM was initially based on the metadata needs of the museum community, and is now seeking extension to the archives community with the eventual aim of developing a model common to the main cultural information domains of archives, libraries and museums. The Vocabulary Mapping Framework (VMF) project has developed a Semantic Web tool to automatically generate mappings between metadata models from the information communities, including publishers. The tool is based on several standards, including CRM, FRAD, FRBR, MARC21 and RDA.

0.006945974 = product of:
  0.027783897 = sum of:
    0.027783897 = product of:
      0.055567794 = sum of:
        0.055567794 = weight(_text_:services in 4336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055567794 = score(doc=4336,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.3245064 = fieldWeight in 4336, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4336)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The publication of library legacy includes publication of structuring vocabularies such as thesauri, classifications, subject headings. Different sources use different vocabularies, different in structure, width, depth and scope, and languages. Federated access to distributed data collections is currently possible if they rely on the same vocabularies. Mapping techniques and standards supporting them (such as SKOS mapping properties, OWL sameAs and equivalentClass) are still largely experimental, even in the linked data land. Libraries use a variety of controlled subject vocabulary and classification schemes to index items in their collections. Although most collections will employ only a single scheme, different schemes may be chosen to index different collections within a library or in separate libraries; schemes are chosen on the basis of language, subject focus (general or specific), granularity (specificity), user expectation, and availability and support (cost, currency, completeness, tools). For example, a typical academic library will operate separate metadata systems for the library's main collections, special collections (e.g. manuscripts, archives, audiovisual), digital collections, and one or more institutional repositories for teaching and research output; each of these systems may employ a different subject vocabulary, with little or no interoperability between terms and concepts. Users expect to have a single point-of-search in resource discovery services focussed on their local institutional collections. Librarians have to use complex and expensive resource discovery platforms to meet user expectations. Library communities continue to develop resource discovery services for consortia with a geographical, subject, sector (public, academic, school, special libraries), and/or domain (libraries, archives, museums) focus. Services are based on distributed searching (e.g. via Z39.50) or metadata aggregations (e.g. OCLC's WorldCat and OAISter). As a result, the number of different subject schemes encountered in such services is increasing. Trans-national consortia (e.g. Europeana) add to the complexity of the environment by including subject vocabularies in multiple languages. Users expect single point-of-search in consortial resource discovery service involving multiple organisations and large-scale metadata aggregations. Users also expect to be able to search for subjects using their own language and terms in an unambiguous, contextualised manner.

0.004341234 = product of:
  0.017364936 = sum of:
    0.017364936 = product of:
      0.034729872 = sum of:
        0.034729872 = weight(_text_:services in 2143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034729872 = score(doc=2143,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 2143, 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=2143)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

New technologies will underpin the future generation of library catalogues. To facilitate their role providing information, serving users, and fulfilling their mission as cultural heritage and memory institutions, libraries must take a technological leap; their standards and services must be transformed to those of the Semantic Web. Bibliographic Information Organization in the Semantic Web explores the technologies that may power future library catalogues, and argues the necessity of such a leap. The text introduces international bibliographic standards and models, and fundamental concepts in their representation in the context of the Semantic Web. Subsequent chapters cover bibliographic information organization, linked open data, methodologies for publishing library metadata, discussion of the wider environment (museum, archival and publishing communities) and users, followed by a conclusion.

0.003472987 = product of:
  0.013891948 = sum of:
    0.013891948 = product of:
      0.027783897 = sum of:
        0.027783897 = weight(_text_:services in 4796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027783897 = score(doc=4796,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.1622532 = fieldWeight in 4796, 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=4796)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Key recommendations of the report are: - That library leaders identify sets of data as possible candidates for early exposure as Linked Data and foster a discussion about Open Data and rights; - That library standards bodies increase library participation in Semantic Web standardization, develop library data standards that are compatible with Linked Data, and disseminate best-practice design patterns tailored to library Linked Data; - That data and systems designers design enhanced user services based on Linked Data capabilities, create URIs for the items in library datasets, develop policies for managing RDF vocabularies and their URIs, and express library data by re-using or mapping to existing Linked Data vocabularies; - That librarians and archivists preserve Linked Data element sets and value vocabularies and apply library experience in curation and long-term preservation to Linked Data datasets.