Search (52 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  1. Understanding metadata (2004) 0.19 
    0.19192213 = product of:
  0.25589618 = sum of:
    0.019420752 = weight(_text_:information in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019420752 = score(doc=2686,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 2686, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2686)
    0.12518483 = weight(_text_:standards in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12518483 = score(doc=2686,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.5571193 = fieldWeight in 2686, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2686)
    0.11129059 = sum of:
      0.056645606 = weight(_text_:organization in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056645606 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.31513596 = fieldWeight in 2686, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2686)
      0.054644987 = weight(_text_:22 in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054644987 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2686, 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=2686)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Metadata (structured information about an object or collection of objects) is increasingly important to libraries, archives, and museums. And although librarians are familiar with a number of issues that apply to creating and using metadata (e.g., authority control, controlled vocabularies, etc.), the world of metadata is nonetheless different than library cataloging, with its own set of challenges. Therefore, whether you are new to these concepts or quite experienced with classic cataloging, this short (20 pages) introductory paper on metadata can be helpful
    Date
    10. 9.2004 10:22:40
    Imprint
    Washington, DC : National Information Standards Organization
    Source
    http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/UnderstandingMetadata.pdf
  2. ¬The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (2007) 0.16 
    0.16212037 = product of:
  0.21616049 = sum of:
    0.02427594 = weight(_text_:information in 3395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02427594 = score(doc=3395,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 3395, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3395)
    0.15648104 = weight(_text_:standards in 3395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15648104 = score(doc=3395,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.69639915 = fieldWeight in 3395, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3395)
    0.035403505 = product of:
      0.07080701 = sum of:
        0.07080701 = weight(_text_:organization in 3395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07080701 = score(doc=3395,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.39391994 = fieldWeight in 3395, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3395)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Defines fifteen metadata elements for resource description in a cross-disciplinary information environment
    Editor
    National Information Standards Organization
    Source
    http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Z39-85-2007.pdf
  3. ¬The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (2012) 0.13 
    0.12774618 = product of:
  0.17032824 = sum of:
    0.02427594 = weight(_text_:information in 4790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02427594 = score(doc=4790,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 4790, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4790)
    0.1106488 = weight(_text_:standards in 4790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1106488 = score(doc=4790,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.49242854 = fieldWeight in 4790, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4790)
    0.035403505 = product of:
      0.07080701 = sum of:
        0.07080701 = weight(_text_:organization in 4790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07080701 = score(doc=4790,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.39391994 = fieldWeight in 4790, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4790)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Defines fifteen metadata elements for resource description in a cross-disciplinary information environment.
    Editor
    National Information Standards Organization
  4. Riley, J.: Understanding metadata : what is metadata, and what is it for? (2017) 0.12 
    0.12241349 = product of:
  0.16321799 = sum of:
    0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 2005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017165681 = score(doc=2005,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2005, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2005)
    0.1106488 = weight(_text_:standards in 2005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1106488 = score(doc=2005,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.49242854 = fieldWeight in 2005, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2005)
    0.035403505 = product of:
      0.07080701 = sum of:
        0.07080701 = weight(_text_:organization in 2005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07080701 = score(doc=2005,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.39391994 = fieldWeight in 2005, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2005)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Imprint
    Baltimore : National Information Standards Organization
  5. Metadata practices on the cutting edge (2004) 0.09 
    0.08568945 = product of:
  0.1142526 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 2335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=2335,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2335, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2335)
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 2335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=2335,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 2335, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2335)
    0.024782453 = product of:
      0.049564905 = sum of:
        0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 2335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049564905 = score(doc=2335,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 2335, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2335)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Imprint
    Washington, DC : National Information Standards Organization
  6. Baca, M.; O'Keefe, E.: Sharing standards and expertise in the early 21st century : Moving toward a collaborative, "cross-community" model for metadata creation (2008) 0.07 
    0.07153899 = product of:
  0.14307798 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 2321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=2321,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2321, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2321)
    0.13277857 = weight(_text_:standards in 2321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13277857 = score(doc=2321,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.59091425 = fieldWeight in 2321, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2321)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This paper provides a brief overview of the evolving descriptive metadata landscape, one phenomenon of which can be characterized as "cross-community" metadata as manifested in records that are the result of a combination of carefully considered data value and data content standards. he online catalog of the Morgan Library & Museum provides a real-life illustration of how diverse data content standards and vocabulary tools can be integrated within the classic data structure/technical interchange format of MARC21 to better describe unique, museum-type objects, and to provide better end-user access and understanding. The Morgan experience also shows the value of developing a collaborative model for metadata creation that combines the subject expertise of curators and scholars with the cataloging expertise and knowledge of standards possessed by librarians.
    Content
    Beitrag während: World library and information congress: 74th IFLA general conference and council, 10-14 August 2008, Québec, Canada.
  7. Heery, R.; Wagner, H.: ¬A metadata registry for the Semantic Web (2002) 0.07 
    0.06597382 = product of:
  0.087965086 = sum of:
    0.00849658 = weight(_text_:information in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00849658 = score(doc=1210,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0960027 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
    0.06707728 = weight(_text_:standards in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06707728 = score(doc=1210,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29851896 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
    0.012391226 = product of:
      0.024782453 = sum of:
        0.024782453 = weight(_text_:organization in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024782453 = score(doc=1210,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.13787198 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    * Agencies maintaining directories of data elements in a domain area in accordance with ISO/IEC 11179 (This standard specifies good practice for data element definition as well as the registration process. Example implementations are the National Health Information Knowledgebase hosted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the Environmental Data Registry hosted by the US Environmental Protection Agency.); * The xml.org directory of the Extended Markup Language (XML) document specifications facilitating re-use of Document Type Definition (DTD), hosted by the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS); * The MetaForm database of Dublin Core usage and mappings maintained at the State and University Library in Goettingen; * The Semantic Web Agreement Group Dictionary, a database of terms for the Semantic Web that can be referred to by humans and software agents; * LEXML, a multi-lingual and multi-jurisdictional RDF Dictionary for the legal world; * The SCHEMAS registry maintained by the European Commission funded SCHEMAS project, which indexes several metadata element sets as well as a large number of activity reports describing metadata related activities and initiatives. Metadata registries essentially provide an index of terms. Given the distributed nature of the Web, there are a number of ways this can be accomplished. For example, the registry could link to terms and definitions in schemas published by implementers and stored locally by the schema maintainer. Alternatively, the registry might harvest various metadata schemas from their maintainers. Registries provide 'added value' to users by indexing schemas relevant to a particular 'domain' or 'community of use' and by simplifying the navigation of terms by enabling multiple schemas to be accessed from one view. An important benefit of this approach is an increase in the reuse of existing terms, rather than users having to reinvent them. Merging schemas to one view leads to harmonization between applications and helps avoid duplication of effort. Additionally, the establishment of registries to index terms actively being used in local implementations facilitates the metadata standards activity by providing implementation experience transferable to the standards-making process.
  8. Hunter, J.: MetaNet - a metadata term thesaurus to enable semantic interoperability between metadata domains (2001) 0.06 
    0.06387309 = product of:
  0.08516412 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 6471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=6471,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 6471, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6471)
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 6471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=6471,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 6471, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6471)
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 6471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=6471,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 6471, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6471)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Metadata interoperability is a fundamental requirement for access to information within networked knowledge organization systems. The Harmony international digital library project [1] has developed a common underlying data model (the ABC model) to enable the scalable mapping of metadata descriptions across domains and media types. The ABC model [2] provides a set of basic building blocks for metadata modeling and recognizes the importance of 'events' to describe unambiguously metadata for objects with a complex history. To test and evaluate the interoperability capabilities of this model, we applied it to some real multimedia examples and analysed the results of mapping from the ABC model to various different metadata domains using XSLT [3]. This work revealed serious limitations in the ability of XSLT to support flexible dynamic semantic mapping. To overcome this, we developed MetaNet [4], a metadata term thesaurus which provides the additional semantic knowledge that is non-existent within declarative XML-encoded metadata descriptions. This paper describes MetaNet, its RDF Schema [5] representation and a hybrid mapping approach which combines the structural and syntactic mapping capabilities of XSLT with the semantic knowledge of MetaNet, to enable flexible and dynamic mapping among metadata standards.
    Source
    Journal of digital information. 1(2001) no.8, art.# 42
  9. Dunsire, G.; Willer, M.: Initiatives to make standard library metadata models and structures available to the Semantic Web (2010) 0.06 
    0.056349926 = product of:
  0.11269985 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=3965,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
    0.09896731 = weight(_text_:standards in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09896731 = score(doc=3965,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.4404415 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
    The paper discusses the importance of these initiatives in releasing as linked data the very large quantities of rich, professionally-generated metadata stored in formats based on these standards, such as UNIMARC and MARC21, addressing such issues as critical mass for semantic and statistical inferencing, integration with user- and machine-generated metadata, and authenticity, veracity and trust. The paper also discusses related initiatives to release controlled vocabularies, including the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), ISBD, Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF), Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), Rameau (French subject headings), Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), and the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF) as linked data. Finally, the paper discusses the potential collective impact of these initiatives on metadata workflows and management systems.
    Content
    Vortrag im Rahmen der Session 93. Cataloguing der WORLD LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CONGRESS: 76TH IFLA GENERAL CONFERENCE AND ASSEMBLY, 10-15 August 2010, Gothenburg, Sweden - 149. Information Technology, Cataloguing, Classification and Indexing with Knowledge Management
  10. Siripan, P.: Metadata and trends of cataloging in Thai libraries (1999) 0.05 
    0.053969897 = product of:
  0.107939795 = sum of:
    0.019420752 = weight(_text_:information in 4183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019420752 = score(doc=4183,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 4183, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4183)
    0.088519044 = weight(_text_:standards in 4183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088519044 = score(doc=4183,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.39394283 = fieldWeight in 4183, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4183)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    A status of cataloging in Thailand shows a movement toward the use of information technology. The international standards for cataloging are being used and modified to effectively organize the information resources. An expanded scope of resources needed cataloging now covers cataloging the Web resources. The paper mentions Thailand's participation in the international working group on the use of metadata for libraries
  11. Broughton, V.: Automatic metadata generation : Digital resource description without human intervention (2007) 0.04 
    0.041733973 = product of:
  0.16693589 = sum of:
    0.16693589 = sum of:
      0.08496841 = weight(_text_:organization in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08496841 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.47270393 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
      0.08196748 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08196748 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    Beitrag anläßlich des Seminars "Tools for knowledge organization - ISKO UK Seminar", 4. September 2007.
    Date
    22. 9.2007 15:41:14
  12. Roszkowski, M.; Lukas, C.: ¬A distributed architecture for resource discovery using metadata (1998) 0.04 
    0.036151398 = product of:
  0.072302796 = sum of:
    0.009710376 = weight(_text_:information in 1256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009710376 = score(doc=1256,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 1256, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1256)
    0.06259242 = weight(_text_:standards in 1256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06259242 = score(doc=1256,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27855965 = fieldWeight in 1256, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1256)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article describes an approach for linking geographically distributed collections of metadata so that they are searchable as a single collection. We describe the infrastructure, which uses standard Internet protocols such as the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) and the Common Indexing Protocol (CIP), to distribute queries, return results, and exchange index information. We discuss the advantages of using linked collections of authoritative metadata as an alternative to using a keyword indexing search-engine for resource discovery. We examine other architectures that use metadata for resource discovery, such as Dienst/NCSTRL, the AHDS HTTP/Z39.50 Gateway, and the ROADS initiative. Finally, we discuss research issues and future directions of the project. The Internet Scout Project, which is funded by the National Science Foundation and is located in the Computer Sciences Department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, is charged with assisting the higher education community in resource discovery on the Internet. To that end, the Scout Report and subsequent subject-specific Scout Reports were developed to guide the U.S. higher education community to research-quality resources. The Scout Report Signpost utilizes the content from the Scout Reports as the basis of a metadata collection. Signpost consists of more than 2000 cataloged Internet sites using established standards such as Library of Congress subject headings and abbreviated call letters, and emerging standards such as the Dublin Core (DC). This searchable and browseable collection is free and freely accessible, as are all of the Internet Scout Project's services.
    As well developed as both the Scout Reports and Signpost are, they cannot capture the wealth of high-quality content that is available on the Internet. An obvious next step toward increasing the usefulness of our own collection and its value to our customer base is to partner with other high-quality content providers who have developed similar collections and to develop a single, virtual collection. Project Isaac (working title) is the Internet Scout Project's latest resource discovery effort. Project Isaac involves the development of a research testbed that allows experimentation with protocols and algorithms for creating, maintaining, indexing and searching distributed collections of metadata. Project Isaac's infrastructure uses standard Internet protocols, such as the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) and the Common Indexing Protocol (CIP) to distribute queries, return results, and exchange index or centroid information. The overall goal is to support a single-search interface to geographically distributed and independently maintained metadata collections.
  13. Baker, T.; Dekkers, M.: Identifying metadata elements with URIs : The CORES resolution (2003) 0.03 
    0.034729347 = product of:
  0.06945869 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 1199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=1199,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 1199, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1199)
    0.06259242 = weight(_text_:standards in 1199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06259242 = score(doc=1199,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27855965 = fieldWeight in 1199, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1199)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    On 18 November 2002, at a meeting organised by the CORES Project (Information Society Technologies Programme, European Union), several organisations regarded as maintenance authorities for metadata elements achieved consensus on a resolution to assign Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) to metadata elements as a useful first step towards the development of mapping infrastructures and interoperability services. The signatories of the CORES Resolution agreed to promote this consensus in their communities and beyond and to implement an action plan in the following six months. Six months having passed, the maintainers of GILS, ONIX, MARC 21, CERIF, DOI, IEEE/LOM, and Dublin Core report on their implementations of the resolution and highlight issues of relevance to establishing good-practice conventions for declaring, identifying, and maintaining metadata elements more generally. In June 2003, the resolution was also endorsed by the maintainers of UNIMARC. The "Resolution on Metadata Element Identifiers", or CORES Resolution, is an agreement among the maintenance organisations for several major metadata standards - GILS, ONIX, MARC 21, UNIMARC, CERIF, DOI®, IEEE/LOM, and Dublin Core - to identify their metadata elements using Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs). The Uniform Resource Identifier, defined in the IETF RFC 2396 as "a compact string of characters for identifying an abstract or physical resource", has been promoted for use as a universal form of identification by the World Wide Web Consortium. The CORES Resolution, formulated at a meeting organised by the European project CORES in November 2002, included a commitment to publicise the consensus statement to a wider audience of metadata standards initiatives and to implement key points of the agreement within the following six months - specifically, to define URI assignment mechanisms, assign URIs to elements, and formulate policies for the persistence of those URIs. This article marks the passage of six months by reporting on progress made in implementing this common action plan. After presenting the text of the CORES Resolution and its three "clarifications", the article summarises the position of each signatory organisation towards assigning URIs to its metadata elements, noting any practical or strategic problems that may have emerged. These progress reports were based on input from Thomas Baker, José Borbinha, Eliot Christian, Erik Duval, Keith Jeffery, Rebecca Guenther, and Norman Paskin. The article closes with a few general observations about these first steps towards the clarification of shared conventions for the identification of metadata elements and perhaps, one can hope, towards the ultimate goal of improving interoperability among a diversity of metadata communities.
  14. Bohne-Lang, A.: Semantische Metadaten für den Webauftritt einer Bibliothek (2016) 0.03 
    0.03195362 = product of:
  0.06390724 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 3337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=3337,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3337, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3337)
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 3337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=3337,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 3337, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3337)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Das Semantic Web ist schon seit über 10 Jahren viel beachtet und hat mit der Verfügbarkeit von Resource Description Framework (RDF) und den entsprechenden Ontologien einen großen Sprung in die Praxis gemacht. Vertreter kleiner Bibliotheken und Bibliothekare mit geringer Technik-Affinität stehen aber im Alltag vor großen Hürden, z.B. bei der Frage, wie man diese Technik konkret in den eigenen Webauftritt einbinden kann: man kommt sich vor wie Don Quijote, der versucht die Windmühlen zu bezwingen. RDF mit seinen Ontologien ist fast unverständlich komplex für Nicht-Informatiker und somit für den praktischen Einsatz auf Bibliotheksseiten in der Breite nicht direkt zu gebrauchen. Mit Schema.org wurde ursprünglich von den drei größten Suchmaschinen der Welt Google, Bing und Yahoo eine einfach und effektive semantische Beschreibung von Entitäten entwickelt. Aktuell wird Schema.org durch Google, Microsoft, Yahoo und Yandex weiter gesponsert und von vielen weiteren Suchmaschinen verstanden. Vor diesem Hintergrund hat die Bibliothek der Medizinischen Fakultät Mannheim auf ihrer Homepage (http://www.umm.uni-heidelberg.de/bibl/) verschiedene maschinenlesbare semantische Metadaten eingebettet. Sehr interessant und zukunftsweisend ist die neueste Entwicklung von Schema.org, bei der man eine 'Library' (https://schema.org/Library) mit Öffnungszeiten und vielem mehr modellieren kann. Ferner haben wir noch semantische Metadaten im Open Graph- und Dublin Core-Format eingebettet, um alte Standards und Facebook-konforme Informationen maschinenlesbar zur Verfügung zu stellen.
    Source
    GMS Medizin - Bibliothek - Information. 16(2016) Nr.3, 11 S. [http://www.egms.de/static/pdf/journals/mbi/2017-16/mbi000372.pdf]
  15. Lightle, K.S.; Ridgway, J.S.: Generation of XML records across multiple metadata standards (2003) 0.03 
    0.03129621 = product of:
  0.12518483 = sum of:
    0.12518483 = weight(_text_:standards in 2189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12518483 = score(doc=2189,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.5571193 = fieldWeight in 2189, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2189)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper describes the process that Eisenhower National Clearinghouse (ENC) staff went through to develop crosswalks between metadata based on three different standards and the generation of the corresponding XML records. ENC needed to generate different flavors of XML records so that metadata would be displayed correctly in catalog records generated through different digital library interfaces. The crosswalk between USMARC, IEEE LOM, and DC-ED is included, as well as examples of the XML records.
  16. Lagoze, C.: Keeping Dublin Core simple : Cross-domain discovery or resource description? (2001) 0.03 
    0.030393302 = product of:
  0.060786605 = sum of:
    0.012874261 = weight(_text_:information in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012874261 = score(doc=1216,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.14546604 = fieldWeight in 1216, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1216)
    0.047912344 = weight(_text_:standards in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047912344 = score(doc=1216,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21322784 = fieldWeight in 1216, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1216)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Reality is messy. Individuals perceive or define objects differently. Objects may change over time, morphing into new versions of their former selves or into things altogether different. A book can give rise to a translation, derivation, or edition, and these resulting objects are related in complex ways to each other and to the people and contexts in which they were created or transformed. Providing a normalized view of such a messy reality is a precondition for managing information. From the first library catalogs, through Melvil Dewey's Decimal Classification system in the nineteenth century, to today's MARC encoding of AACR2 cataloging rules, libraries have epitomized the process of what David Levy calls "order making", whereby catalogers impose a veneer of regularity on the natural disorder of the artifacts they encounter. The pre-digital library within which the Catalog and its standards evolved was relatively self-contained and controlled. Creating and maintaining catalog records was, and still is, the task of professionals. Today's Web, in contrast, has brought together a diversity of information management communities, with a variety of order-making standards, into what Stuart Weibel has called the Internet Commons. The sheer scale of this context has motivated a search for new ways to describe and index information. Second-generation search engines such as Google can yield astonishingly good search results, while tools such as ResearchIndex for automatic citation indexing and techniques for inferring "Web communities" from constellations of hyperlinks promise even better methods for focusing queries on information from authoritative sources. Such "automated digital libraries," according to Bill Arms, promise to radically reduce the cost of managing information. Alongside the development of such automated methods, there is increasing interest in metadata as a means of imposing pre-defined order on Web content. While the size and changeability of the Web makes professional cataloging impractical, a minimal amount of information ordering, such as that represented by the Dublin Core (DC), may vastly improve the quality of an automatic index at low cost; indeed, recent work suggests that some types of simple description may be generated with little or no human intervention.
    Metadata is not monolithic. Instead, it is helpful to think of metadata as multiple views that can be projected from a single information object. Such views can form the basis of customized information services, such as search engines. Multiple views -- different types of metadata associated with a Web resource -- can facilitate a "drill-down" search paradigm, whereby people start their searches at a high level and later narrow their focus using domain-specific search categories. In Figure 1, for example, Mona Lisa may be viewed from the perspective of non-specialized searchers, with categories that are valid across domains (who painted it and when?); in the context of a museum (when and how was it acquired?); in the geo-spatial context of a walking tour using mobile devices (where is it in the gallery?); and in a legal framework (who owns the rights to its reproduction?). Multiple descriptive views imply a modular approach to metadata. Modularity is the basis of metadata architectures such as the Resource Description Framework (RDF), which permit different communities of expertise to associate and maintain multiple metadata packages for Web resources. As noted elsewhere, static association of multiple metadata packages with resources is but one way of achieving modularity. Another method is to computationally derive order-making views customized to the current needs of a client. This paper examines the evolution and scope of the Dublin Core from this perspective of metadata modularization. Dublin Core began in 1995 with a specific goal and scope -- as an easy-to-create and maintain descriptive format to facilitate cross-domain resource discovery on the Web. Over the years, this goal of "simple metadata for coarse-granularity discovery" came to mix with another goal -- that of community and domain-specific resource description and its attendant complexity. A notion of "qualified Dublin Core" evolved whereby the model for simple resource discovery -- a set of simple metadata elements in a flat, document-centric model -- would form the basis of more complex descriptions by treating the values of its elements as entities with properties ("component elements") in their own right.
    At the time of writing, the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) has clarified its commitment to the simple approach. The qualification principles announced in early 2000 support the use of DC elements as the basis for simple statements about resources, rather than as the foundation for more descriptive clauses. This paper takes a critical look at some of the issues that led up to this renewed commitment to simplicity. We argue that: * There remains a compelling need for simple, "pidgin" metadata. From a technical and economic perspective, document-centric metadata, where simple string values are associated with a finite set of properties, is most appropriate for generic, cross-domain discovery queries in the Internet Commons. Such metadata is not necessarily fixed in physical records, but may be projected algorithmically from more complex metadata or from content itself. * The Dublin Core, while far from perfect from an engineering perspective, is an acceptable standard for such simple metadata. Agreements in the global information space are as much social as technical, and the process by which the Dublin Core has been developed, involving a broad cross-section of international participants, is a model for such "socially developed" standards. * Efforts to introduce complexity into Dublin Core are misguided. Complex descriptions may be necessary for some Web resources and for some purposes, such as administration, preservation, and reference linking. However, complex descriptions require more expressive data models that differentiate between agents, documents, contexts, events, and the like. An attempt to intermix simplicity and complexity, and the data models most appropriate for them, defeats the equally noble goals of cross-domain description and extensive resource description. * The principle of modularity suggests that metadata formats tailored for simplicity be used alongside others tailored for complexity.
  17. Duval, E.; Hodgins, W.; Sutton, S.; Weibel, S.L.: Metadata principles and practicalities (2002) 0.03 
    0.028076127 = product of:
  0.056152254 = sum of:
    0.011892734 = weight(_text_:information in 1208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011892734 = score(doc=1208,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 1208, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1208)
    0.044259522 = weight(_text_:standards in 1208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044259522 = score(doc=1208,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19697142 = fieldWeight in 1208, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1208)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    For those of us still struggling with basic concepts regarding metadata in this brave new world in which cataloging means much more than MARC, an article like this is welcome indeed. In this 30.000-foot overview of the metadata landscape, broad issues such as modularity, namespaces, extensibility, refinement, and multilingualism are discussed. In addition, "practicalities" like application profiles, syntax and semantics, metadata registries, and automated generation of metadata are explained. Although this piece is not exhaustive of high-level metadata issues, it is nonetheless a useful description of some of the most important issues surrounding metadata creation and use. The rapid changes in the means of information access occasioned by the emergence of the World Wide Web have spawned an upheaval in the means of describing and managing information resources. Metadata is a primary tool in this work, and an important link in the value chain of knowledge economies. Yet there is much confusion about how metadata should be integrated into information systems. How is it to be created or extended? Who will manage it? How can it be used and exchanged? Whence comes its authority? Can different metadata standards be used together in a given environment? These and related questions motivate this paper. The authors hope to make explicit the strong foundations of agreement shared by two prominent metadata Initiatives: the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) and the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Learning Object Metadata (LOM) Working Group. This agreement emerged from a joint metadata taskforce meeting in Ottawa in August, 2001. By elucidating shared principles and practicalities of metadata, we hope to raise the level of understanding among our respective (and shared) constituents, so that all stakeholders can move forward more decisively to address their respective problems. The ideas in this paper are divided into two categories. Principles are those concepts judged to be common to all domains of metadata and which might inform the design of any metadata schema or application. Practicalities are the rules of thumb, constraints, and infrastructure issues that emerge from bringing theory into practice in the form of useful and sustainable systems.
  18. Frodl, C.; Gros, A.; Rühle, S.: Übersetzung des Singapore Framework für Dublin-Core-Anwendungsprofile (2009) 0.03 
    0.027384182 = product of:
  0.10953673 = sum of:
    0.10953673 = weight(_text_:standards in 3229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10953673 = score(doc=3229,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.4874794 = fieldWeight in 3229, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3229)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Das Singapore Framework für Dublin-Core-Anwendungsprofile nennt die Rahmenbedingungen um Metadatenanwendungen möglichst interoperabel zu gestalten und so zu dokumentieren, dass sie nachnutzbar sind. Es definiert die Komponenten, die erforderlich und hilfreich sind, um ein Anwendungsprofil zu dokumentieren und es beschreibt, wie sich diese dokumentarischen Standards gegenüber Standard-Domain-Modellen und den Semantic-Web-Standards verhalten. Das Singapore Framework ist die Grundlage für die Beurteilung von Anwendungsprofilen in Hinblick auf Vollständigkeit der Dokumentation und auf Übereinstimmung mit den Prinzipien der Web-Architektur. Dieses Dokument bietet eine kurze Übersicht über das Singapore Framework. Weitere Dokumente, die als Anleitung für die Erstellung der erforderlichen Dokumentation dienen, sind in Planung.
  19. Greenberg, J.; Pattuelli, M.; Parsia, B.; Robertson, W.: Author-generated Dublin Core Metadata for Web Resources : A Baseline Study in an Organization (2002) 0.03 
    0.026284594 = product of:
  0.05256919 = sum of:
    0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 1281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017165681 = score(doc=1281,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1281, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1281)
    0.035403505 = product of:
      0.07080701 = sum of:
        0.07080701 = weight(_text_:organization in 1281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07080701 = score(doc=1281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.39391994 = fieldWeight in 1281, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Source
    Journal of digital information. 2(2002) no.2,
  20. Frodl, C. (Bearb.); Fischer, T. (Bearb.); Baker, T. (Bearb.); Rühle, S. (Bearb.): Deutsche Übersetzung des Dublin-Core-Metadaten-Elemente-Sets (2007) 0.02 
    0.023472156 = product of:
  0.093888626 = sum of:
    0.093888626 = weight(_text_:standards in 516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093888626 = score(doc=516,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.41783947 = fieldWeight in 516, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=516)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Dublin-Core-Metadaten-Elemente sind ein Standard zur Beschreibung unterschiedlicher Objekte. Die Kernelemente dieses Standards werden in dem "Dublin Core Metadata Element Set" beschrieben (http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dces/). Das Set setzt sich aus 15 Elementen zusammen, die gleichzeitig auch Teil der umfangreicheren "DCMI Metadata Terms" (http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/) sind, wobei die "DCMI Metadata Terms" neben weiteren Elementen auch ein kontrolliertes Vokabular für Objekttypen enthalten. Die Übersetzung entstand zwischen April und Juli 2007 in der KIM-Arbeitsgruppe Übersetzung DCMES (http://www.kim-forum.org/kim-ag/index.htm). Anfang Juli 2007 wurde der Entwurf der Übersetzung in einem Blog veröffentlicht und die Öffentlichkeit aufgefordert, diesen Entwurf zu kommentieren. Anfang August wurden dann die in dem Blog gesammelten Kommentare in der KIM-Arbeitsgruppe Übersetzung DCMES diskutiert und so weit möglich in den Übersetzungsentwurf eingearbeitet.
    Content
    Das vorliegende Dokument ist eine Übersetzung des "Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1". Grundlage der Übersetzung ist: NISO Standard Z39.85-2007 (May 2007): http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Z39-85-2007.pdf.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 45
  • d 7

Types

  • a 34
  • n 3
  • m 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes