Search (833 results, page 1 of 42)

  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Das, S.; Bagchi, M.; Hussey, P.: How to teach domain ontology-based knowledge graph construction? : an Irish experiment (2023) 0.12 
    0.119535774 = product of:
  0.15938103 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 1126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=1126,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1126, 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=1126)
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 1126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=1126,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 1126, 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=1126)
    0.09547379 = sum of:
      0.06132067 = weight(_text_:organization in 1126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06132067 = score(doc=1126,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 1126, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1126)
      0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 1126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03415312 = score(doc=1126,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1126, 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=1126)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Domains represent concepts which belong to specific parts of the world. The particularized meaning of words linguistically encoding such domain concepts are provided by domain specific resources. The explicit meaning of such words are increasingly captured computationally using domain-specific ontologies, which, even for the same reference domain, are most often than not semantically incompatible. As information systems that rely on domain ontologies expand, there is a growing need to not only design domain ontologies and domain ontology-grounded Knowl­edge Graphs (KGs) but also to align them to general standards and conventions for interoperability. This often presents an insurmountable challenge to domain experts who have to additionally learn the construction of domain ontologies and KGs. Until now, several research methodologies have been proposed by different research groups using different technical approaches and based on scenarios of different domains of application. However, no methodology has been proposed which not only facilitates designing conceptually well-founded ontologies, but is also, equally, grounded in the general pedagogical principles of knowl­edge organization and, thereby, flexible enough to teach, and reproduce vis-à-vis domain experts. The purpose of this paper is to provide such a general, pedagogically flexible semantic knowl­edge modelling methodology. We exemplify the methodology by examples and illustrations from a professional-level digital healthcare course, and conclude with an evaluation grounded in technological parameters as well as user experience design principles.
    Content
    Vgl.: https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0943-7444-2023-3/ko-knowledge-organization-jahrgang-50-2023-heft-3.
    Date
    20.11.2023 17:19:22
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 50(2023) no.3, S.182 - 201
  2. Furner, J.: Definitions of "metadata" : a brief survey of international standards (2020) 0.11 
    0.10989834 = product of:
  0.14653112 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 5912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=5912,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5912, 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=5912)
    0.114989616 = weight(_text_:standards in 5912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.114989616 = score(doc=5912,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.51174676 = fieldWeight in 5912, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5912)
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 5912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=5912,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 5912, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5912)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    A search on the term "metadata" in the International Organization for Standardization's Online Browsing Platform (ISO OBP) reveals that there are 96 separate ISO standards that provide definitions of the term. Between them, these standards supply 46 different definitions-a lack of standardization that we might not have expected, given the context. In fact, if we make creative use of Simpson's index of concentration (originally devised as a measure of ecological diversity) to measure the degree of standardization of definition in this case, we arrive at a value of 0.05, on a scale of zero to one. It is suggested, however, that the situation is not as problematic as it might seem: that low cross-domain levels of standardization of definition should not be cause for concern.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.6, S.E33-E42
  3. Rocha Souza, R.; Lemos, D.: a comparative analysis : Knowledge organization systems for the representation of multimedia resources on the Web (2020) 0.11 
    0.10573533 = product of:
  0.14098044 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 5993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=5993,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5993, 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=5993)
    0.093888626 = weight(_text_:standards in 5993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093888626 = score(doc=5993,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.41783947 = fieldWeight in 5993, 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=5993)
    0.036792405 = product of:
      0.07358481 = sum of:
        0.07358481 = weight(_text_:organization in 5993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07358481 = score(doc=5993,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.40937364 = fieldWeight in 5993, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5993)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    The lack of standardization in the production, organization and dissemination of information in documentation centers and institutions alike, as a result from the digitization of collections and their availability on the internet has called for integration efforts. The sheer availability of multimedia content has fostered the development of many distinct and, most of the time, independent metadata standards for its description. This study aims at presenting and comparing the existing standards of metadata, vocabularies and ontologies for multimedia annotation and also tries to offer a synthetic overview of its main strengths and weaknesses, aiding efforts for semantic integration and enhancing the findability of available multimedia resources on the web. We also aim at unveiling the characteristics that could, should and are perhaps not being highlighted in the characterization of multimedia resources.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 47(2020) no.4, S.300-319
  4. Fugmann, R.: What is information? : an information veteran looks back (2022) 0.09 
    0.08874844 = product of:
  0.17749688 = sum of:
    0.038383633 = weight(_text_:information in 1085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038383633 = score(doc=1085,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.43369597 = fieldWeight in 1085, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1085)
    0.13911325 = sum of:
      0.07080701 = weight(_text_:organization in 1085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07080701 = score(doc=1085,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.39391994 = fieldWeight in 1085, 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=1085)
      0.06830624 = weight(_text_:22 in 1085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06830624 = score(doc=1085,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1085, 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=1085)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Content
    Vgl.: https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0943-7444-2022-1-3/what-is-information-an-information-veteran-looks-back-jahrgang-49-2022-heft-1?page=1.
    Date
    18. 8.2022 19:22:57
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 49(2022) no.1, S.3-5
    Theme
    Information
  5. Alipour, O.; Soheili, F.; Khasseh, A.A.: ¬A co-word analysis of global research on knowledge organization: 1900-2019 (2022) 0.09 
    0.08750054 = product of:
  0.11666739 = sum of:
    0.019420752 = weight(_text_:information in 1106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019420752 = score(doc=1106,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 1106, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1106)
    0.044259522 = weight(_text_:standards in 1106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044259522 = score(doc=1106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19697142 = fieldWeight in 1106, 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=1106)
    0.052987114 = product of:
      0.10597423 = sum of:
        0.10597423 = weight(_text_:organization in 1106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10597423 = score(doc=1106,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.5895654 = fieldWeight in 1106, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    The study's objective is to analyze the structure of knowledge organization studies conducted worldwide. This applied research has been conducted with a scientometrics approach using the co-word analysis. The research records consisted of all articles published in the journals of Knowledge Organization and Cataloging & Classification Quarterly and keywords related to the field of knowledge organization indexed in Web of Science from 1900 to 2019, in which 17,950 records were analyzed entirely with plain text format. The total number of keywords was 25,480, which was reduced to 12,478 keywords after modifications and removal of duplicates. Then, 115 keywords with a frequency of at least 18 were included in the final analysis, and finally, the co-word network was drawn. BibExcel, UCINET, VOSviewer, and SPSS software were used to draw matrices, analyze co-word networks, and draw dendrograms. Furthermore, strategic diagrams were drawn using Excel software. The keywords "information retrieval," "classification," and "ontology" are among the most frequently used keywords in knowledge organization articles. Findings revealed that "Ontology*Semantic Web", "Digital Library*Information Retrieval" and "Indexing*Information Retrieval" are highly frequent co-word pairs, respectively. The results of hierarchical clustering indicated that the global research on knowledge organization consists of eight main thematic clusters; the largest is specified for the topic of "classification, indexing, and information retrieval." The smallest clusters deal with the topics of "data processing" and "theoretical concepts of information and knowledge organization" respectively. Cluster 1 (cataloging standards and knowledge organization) has the highest density, while Cluster 5 (classification, indexing, and information retrieval) has the highest centrality. According to the findings of this research, the keyword "information retrieval" has played a significant role in knowledge organization studies, both as a keyword and co-word pair. In the co-word section, there is a type of related or general topic relationship between co-word pairs. Results indicated that information retrieval is one of the main topics in knowledge organization, while the theoretical concepts of knowledge organization have been neglected. In general, the co-word structure of knowledge organization research indicates the multiplicity of global concepts and topics studied in this field globally.
    Content
    Vgl.: https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0943-7444-2022-5/ko-knowledge-organization-jahrgang-49-2022-heft-5.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 49(2022) no.5, S.303 - 315
  6. Golub, K.; Ziolkowski, P.M.; Zlodi, G.: Organizing subject access to cultural heritage in Swedish online museums (2022) 0.08 
    0.082814656 = product of:
  0.11041954 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=688,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 688, 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=688)
    0.07665975 = weight(_text_:standards in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07665975 = score(doc=688,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34116453 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
    0.020027246 = product of:
      0.040054493 = sum of:
        0.040054493 = weight(_text_:organization in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040054493 = score(doc=688,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.22283478 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose The study aims to paint a representative picture of the current state of search interfaces of Swedish online museum collections, focussing on search functionalities with particular reference to subject searching, as well as the use of controlled vocabularies, with the purpose of identifying which improvements of the search interfaces are needed to ensure high-quality information retrieval for the end user. Design/methodology/approach In the first step, a set of 21 search interface criteria was identified, based on related research and current standards in the domain of cultural heritage knowledge organization. Secondly, a complete set of Swedish museums that provide online access to their collections was identified, comprising nine cross-search services and 91 individual museums' websites. These 100 websites were each evaluated against the 21 criteria, between 1 July and 31 August 2020. Findings Although many standards and guidelines are in place to ensure quality-controlled subject indexing, which in turn support information retrieval of relevant resources (as individual or full search results), the study shows that they are not broadly implemented, resulting in information retrieval failures for the end user. The study also demonstrates a strong need for the implementation of controlled vocabularies in these museums. Originality/value This study is a rare piece of research which examines subject searching in online museums; the 21 search criteria and their use in the analysis of the complete set of online collections of a country represents a considerable and unique contribution to the fields of knowledge organization and information retrieval of cultural heritage. Its particular value lies in showing how the needs of end users, many of which are documented and reflected in international standards and guidelines, should be taken into account in designing search tools for these museums; especially so in subject searching, which is the most complex and yet the most common type of search. Much effort has been invested into digitizing cultural heritage collections, but access to them is hindered by poor search functionality. This study identifies which are the most important aspects to improve.
  7. Wells, D.: Online Public Access Catalogues and library discovery systems (2021) 0.08 
    0.080047175 = product of:
  0.10672957 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=588,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 588, 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=588)
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=588,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 588, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=588)
    0.030040871 = product of:
      0.060081743 = sum of:
        0.060081743 = weight(_text_:organization in 588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060081743 = score(doc=588,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 588, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=588)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    This article provides an overview of computer based catalogue systems designed for use by library clients, seeing present day 'discovery systems' on the same trajectory as the older 'online public access catalogues' (OPACs) which they are gradually replacing, both in technical development and their approach to client use scenarios. It traces the history of the OPAC/discovery system from its origins in the library automation of the 1960s through to the present and discusses the main technical standards which have formed its development. The article goes on to consider questions relating to the usability of electronic library catalogues and highlights semiotic and ethical issues inherent to their design. It concludes with reflections on the future of the OPAC/discovery system in an information universe apparently dominated by the internet search engine.
    Series
    Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 48(2021) no.6, S.457-466
  8. Bergman, M.K..: Hierarchy in knowledge systems (2022) 0.07 
    0.07359202 = product of:
  0.0981227 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 1099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=1099,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1099, 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=1099)
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 1099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=1099,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 1099, 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=1099)
    0.030660335 = product of:
      0.06132067 = sum of:
        0.06132067 = weight(_text_:organization in 1099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06132067 = score(doc=1099,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 1099, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1099)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Hierarchies abound to help us organize our world. A hierarchy places items into a general order, where more 'general' is also more 'abstract'. The etymology of hierarchy is grounded in notions of religious and social rank. This article, after a historical review, focuses on knowledge systems, an interloper of the term hierarchy since at least the 1800s. Hierarchies in knowledge systems include taxonomies, classification systems, or thesauri in information science, and systems for representing information and knowledge to computers, notably ontologies and knowledge representation languages. Hierarchies are the logical underpinning of inference and reasoning in these systems, as well as the scaffolding for classification and inheritance. Hierarchies in knowledge systems express subsumption relations that have flexible variants, which we can represent algorithmically, and thus computationally. This article dissects that variability, leading to a proposed typology of hierarchies useful to knowledge systems. The article argues through a perspective informed by Charles Peirce that natural hierarchies are real, can be logically determined, and are the appropriate basis for knowledge systems. Description logics and semantic language standards reflect this perspective, importantly through their open-world logic and vocabularies for generalized subsumption hierarchies. Recent research suggests possible mechanisms for the emergence of natural hierarchies.
    Content
    Vgl.: https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0943-7444-2022-1/ko-knowledge-organization-jahrgang-49-2022-heft-1.
    Series
    Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 49(2022) no.1, S.40 - 66
  9. Arndt, O.: Erosion der bürgerlichen Freiheiten (2020) 0.07 
    0.07240096 = product of:
  0.14480191 = sum of:
    0.1106488 = weight(_text_:standards in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1106488 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.49242854 = fieldWeight in 82, 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=82)
    0.03415312 = product of:
      0.06830624 = sum of:
        0.06830624 = weight(_text_:22 in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06830624 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 82, 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=82)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Inwieweit die für smart cities nötige KI und Standards wie 5G grundsätzlich zu einer umfassenden Militarisierung des Alltags führen.
    Date
    22. 6.2020 19:16:24
  10. Schoenbeck, O.; Schröter, M.; Werr, N.: Framework Informationskompetenz in der Hochschulbildung (2021) 0.06 
    0.06326494 = product of:
  0.12652989 = sum of:
    0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01699316 = score(doc=298,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 298, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=298)
    0.10953673 = weight(_text_:standards in 298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10953673 = score(doc=298,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.4874794 = fieldWeight in 298, 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=298)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Im Mittelpunkt dieses Beitrags steht das 2016 von der Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) veröffentlichte Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, dessen Kernideen und Entwicklung aus Vorläufern wie den 2000 von der ACRL publizierten Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education heraus skizziert werden. Die Rezeptionsgeschichte dieser Standards im deutschen Sprachraum wird vor dem Hintergrund der Geschichte ihrer (partiellen) Übersetzung nachgezeichnet und hieraus das Potenzial abgeleitet, das die nun vorliegende vollständige Übersetzung des Framework ins Deutsche für eine zeitgemäße Förderung von Informationskompetenz bietet. Die vielfältigen Herausforderungen einer solchen Übersetzung werden durch Einblicke in die Übersetzungswerkstatt exemplarisch reflektiert.
  11. Nabavi, M.; Karimi, E.: Metadata elements for children in theory and practice (2022) 0.06 
    0.06196475 = product of:
  0.1239295 = sum of:
    0.093888626 = weight(_text_:standards in 1110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093888626 = score(doc=1110,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.41783947 = fieldWeight in 1110, 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=1110)
    0.030040871 = product of:
      0.060081743 = sum of:
        0.060081743 = weight(_text_:organization in 1110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060081743 = score(doc=1110,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 1110, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1110)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This research aimed to investigate the status of children-specific metadata elements in theory (existing literature) and practice (metadata standards and children's digital libraries). Literature reviews as well as two cases, including children's online national libraries of Iran, and Singapore, are used to identify children-specific metadata elements and their application. The results revealed that descriptive metadata types had been mentioned more than analytical, social, and relational types; the DCMI metadata standard, besides LOM and ALTO metadata standards, can be used to develop an application profile for children's library catalogs. Two cases showed that they partially cover children-specific metadata elements, and neither has covered relational metadata elements. A deeper analysis of the children-specific metadata elements suggests that children's catalogs should be semantic and social. The results of this study can be insightful for children's book catalogers and children's book publishers (for marketing purposes).
    Content
    Vgl.: https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0943-7444-2022-6/ko-knowledge-organization-jahrgang-49-2022-heft-6.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 49(2022) no.6, S.435 - 447
  12. Ahmed, M.; Mukhopadhyay, M.; Mukhopadhyay, P.: Automated knowledge organization : AI ML based subject indexing system for libraries (2023) 0.06 
    0.061206747 = product of:
  0.081608996 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=977,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 977, 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=977)
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=977,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 977, 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=977)
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=977,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 977, 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=977)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    The research study as reported here is an attempt to explore the possibilities of an AI/ML-based semi-automated indexing system in a library setup to handle large volumes of documents. It uses the Python virtual environment to install and configure an open source AI environment (named Annif) to feed the LOD (Linked Open Data) dataset of Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) as a standard KOS (Knowledge Organisation System). The framework deployed the Turtle format of LCSH after cleaning the file with Skosify, applied an array of backend algorithms (namely TF-IDF, Omikuji, and NN-Ensemble) to measure relative performance, and selected Snowball as an analyser. The training of Annif was conducted with a large set of bibliographic records populated with subject descriptors (MARC tag 650$a) and indexed by trained LIS professionals. The training dataset is first treated with MarcEdit to export it in a format suitable for OpenRefine, and then in OpenRefine it undergoes many steps to produce a bibliographic record set suitable to train Annif. The framework, after training, has been tested with a bibliographic dataset to measure indexing efficiencies, and finally, the automated indexing framework is integrated with data wrangling software (OpenRefine) to produce suggested headings on a mass scale. The entire framework is based on open-source software, open datasets, and open standards.
    Source
    DESIDOC journal of library and information technology. 43(2023) no.1, S.45-54
  13. Svoljsak, S.: Historical collections and library catalogs : provenance metadata, bibliographic standards and frameworks, and catalog functionalities (2022) 0.06 
    0.060776353 = product of:
  0.121552706 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=1148,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1148, 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=1148)
    0.10953673 = weight(_text_:standards in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10953673 = score(doc=1148,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.4874794 = fieldWeight in 1148, 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=1148)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The article discusses the importance of custodial history metadata in bibliographic standards, formats and frameworks, and in library catalogs. It analyzes the present situation and proposes some basic solutions that would make it possible for the custodial history metadata to be entered in a standardized way and to be functionally linked to the holdings metadata so that catalog users would be able to search and retrieve information on the most relevant copies in terms of their provenance. Visual simulations of various functionalities based on the search and results display interface of the Slovenian National Library's catalog are also included.
  14. Wang, J.; Halffman, W.; Zhang, Y.H.: Sorting out journals : the proliferation of journal lists in China (2023) 0.06 
    0.060737852 = product of:
  0.0809838 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 1055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=1055,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1055, 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=1055)
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 1055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=1055,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 1055, 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=1055)
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 1055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=1055,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1055, 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=1055)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Journal lists are instruments to categorize, compare, and assess research and scholarly publications. Our study investigates the remarkable proliferation of such journal lists in China, analyses their underlying values, quality criteria and ranking principles, and specifies how concerns specific to the Chinese research policy and publishing system inform these lists. Discouraged lists of "bad journals" reflect concerns over inferior research publications, but also the involved drain on public resources. Endorsed lists of "good journals" are based on criteria valued in research policy, reflecting the distinctive administrative logic of state-led Chinese research and publishing policy, ascribing worth to scientific journals for its specific national and institutional needs. In this regard, the criteria used for journal list construction are contextual and reflect the challenges of public resource allocation in a market-led publication system. Chinese journal lists therefore reflect research policy changes, such as a shift away from output-dominated research evaluation, the specific concerns about research misconduct, and balancing national research needs against international standards, resulting in distinctly Chinese quality criteria. However, contrasting concerns and inaccuracies lead to contradictions in the "qualify" and "disqualify" binary logic and demonstrate inherent tensions and limitations in journal lists as policy tools.
    Date
    22. 9.2023 16:39:23
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.10, S.1207-1228
  15. Hjoerland, B.: Table of contents (ToC) (2022) 0.06 
    0.056771483 = product of:
  0.11354297 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1096, 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=1096)
    0.10496013 = sum of:
      0.07080701 = weight(_text_:organization in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07080701 = score(doc=1096,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.39391994 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
      0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03415312 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, 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=1096)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    A table of contents (ToC) is a kind of document representation as well as a paratext and a kind of finding device to the document it represents. TOCs are very common in books and some other kinds of documents, but not in all kinds. This article discusses the definition and functions of ToC, normative guidelines for their design, and the history and forms of ToC in different kinds of documents and media. A main part of the article is about the role of ToC in information searching, in current awareness services and as items added to bibliographical records. The introduction and the conclusion focus on the core theoretical issues concerning ToCs. Should they be document-oriented or request-oriented, neutral, or policy-oriented, objective, or subjective? It is concluded that because of the special functions of ToCs, the arguments for the request-oriented (policy-oriented, subjective) view are weaker than they are in relation to indexing and knowledge organization in general. Apart from level of granularity, the evaluation of a ToC is difficult to separate from the evaluation of the structuring and naming of the elements of the structure of the document it represents.
    Content
    Vgl.: https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0943-7444-2022-2/ko-knowledge-organization-jahrgang-49-2022-heft-2?page=1.
    Date
    18.11.2023 13:47:22
    Series
    Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 49(2022) no.2, S.98 - 120
  16. Barité, M.; Parentelli, V.; Rodríguez Casaballe, N.; Suárez, M.V.: Interdisciplinarity and postgraduate teaching of knowledge organization (KO) : elements for a necessary dialogue (2023) 0.06 
    0.056771483 = product of:
  0.11354297 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 1125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=1125,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1125, 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=1125)
    0.10496013 = sum of:
      0.07080701 = weight(_text_:organization in 1125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07080701 = score(doc=1125,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.39391994 = fieldWeight in 1125, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1125)
      0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 1125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03415312 = score(doc=1125,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1125, 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=1125)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Interdisciplinarity implies the previous existence of disciplinary fields and not their dissolution. As a general objective, we propose to establish an initial approach to the emphasis given to interdisciplinarity in the teaching of KO, through the teaching staff responsible for postgraduate courses focused on -or related to the KO, in Ibero-American universities. For conducting the research, the framework and distribution of a survey addressed to teachers is proposed, based on four lines of action: 1. The way teachers manage the concept of interdisciplinarity. 2. The place that teachers give to interdisciplinarity in KO. 3. Assessment of interdisciplinary content that teachers incorporate into their postgraduate courses. 4. Set of teaching strategies and resources used by teachers to include interdisciplinarity in the teaching of KO. The study analyzed 22 responses. Preliminary results show that KO teachers recognize the influence of other disciplines in concepts, theories, methods, and applications, but no consensus has been reached regarding which disciplines and authors are the ones who build interdisciplinary bridges. Among other conclusions, the study strongly suggests that environmental and social tensions are reflected in subject representation, especially in the construction of friendly knowl­edge organization systems with interdisciplinary visions, and in the expressions through which information is sought.
    Content
    Vgl.: https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0943-7444-2023-3/ko-knowledge-organization-jahrgang-50-2023-heft-3.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 50(2023) no.3, S.227 - 241
  17. Schoenbeck, O.; Schröter, M.; Werr, N.: Making of oder Lost in translation? : Das Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education - Herausforderungen bei der Übersetzung ins Deutsche und der bibliothekarischen Anwendung (2021) 0.06 
    0.055863865 = product of:
  0.11172773 = sum of:
    0.017839102 = weight(_text_:information in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017839102 = score(doc=297,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 297, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=297)
    0.093888626 = weight(_text_:standards in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093888626 = score(doc=297,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.41783947 = fieldWeight in 297, 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=297)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Im Mittelpunkt dieses Beitrags steht das 2016 von der Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) veröffentlichte Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, dessen Kernideen und Entwicklung aus Vorläufern wie den 2000 von der ACRL publizierten Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education heraus skizziert werden. Die Rezeptionsgeschichte dieser Standards im deutschen Sprachraum wird vor dem Hintergrund der Geschichte ihrer (partiellen) Übersetzung nachgezeichnet und hieraus das Potenzial abgeleitet, das die nun vorliegende vollständige Übersetzung des Framework ins Deutsche für eine zeitgemäße Förderung von Informationskompetenz bietet. Die vielfältigen Herausforderungen einer solchen Übersetzung werden durch Einblicke in die Übersetzungswerkstatt exemplarisch reflektiert.
  18. Palsdottir, A.: Data literacy and management of research data : a prerequisite for the sharing of research data (2021) 0.05 
    0.053739987 = product of:
  0.071653314 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=183,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 183, 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=183)
    0.044259522 = weight(_text_:standards in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044259522 = score(doc=183,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19697142 = fieldWeight in 183, 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=183)
    0.013661247 = product of:
      0.027322493 = sum of:
        0.027322493 = weight(_text_:22 in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027322493 = score(doc=183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 183, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=183)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the knowledge and attitude about research data management, the use of data management methods and the perceived need for support, in relation to participants' field of research. Design/methodology/approach This is a quantitative study. Data were collected by an email survey and sent to 792 academic researchers and doctoral students. Total response rate was 18% (N = 139). The measurement instrument consisted of six sets of questions: about data management plans, the assignment of additional information to research data, about metadata, standard file naming systems, training at data management methods and the storing of research data. Findings The main finding is that knowledge about the procedures of data management is limited, and data management is not a normal practice in the researcher's work. They were, however, in general, of the opinion that the university should take the lead by recommending and offering access to the necessary tools of data management. Taken together, the results indicate that there is an urgent need to increase the researcher's understanding of the importance of data management that is based on professional knowledge and to provide them with resources and training that enables them to make effective and productive use of data management methods. Research limitations/implications The survey was sent to all members of the population but not a sample of it. Because of the response rate, the results cannot be generalized to all researchers at the university. Nevertheless, the findings may provide an important understanding about their research data procedures, in particular what characterizes their knowledge about data management and attitude towards it. Practical implications Awareness of these issues is essential for information specialists at academic libraries, together with other units within the universities, to be able to design infrastructures and develop services that suit the needs of the research community. The findings can be used, to develop data policies and services, based on professional knowledge of best practices and recognized standards that assist the research community at data management. Originality/value The study contributes to the existing literature about research data management by examining the results by participants' field of research. Recognition of the issues is critical in order for information specialists in collaboration with universities to design relevant infrastructures and services for academics and doctoral students that can promote their research data management.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 73(2021) no.2, S.322-341
  19. Gartner, R.: Metadata in the digital library : building an integrated strategy with XML (2021) 0.05 
    0.05343335 = product of:
  0.1068667 = sum of:
    0.0072827823 = weight(_text_:information in 732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0072827823 = score(doc=732,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.08228803 = fieldWeight in 732, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=732)
    0.099583924 = weight(_text_:standards in 732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.099583924 = score(doc=732,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.4431857 = fieldWeight in 732, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=732)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The range of metadata needed to run a digital library and preserve its collections in the long term is much more extensive and complicated than anything in its traditional counterpart. It includes the same 'descriptive' information which guides users to the resources they require but must supplement this with comprehensive 'administrative' metadata: this encompasses technical details of the files that make up its collections, the documentation of complex intellectual property rights and the extensive set needed to support its preservation in the long-term. To accommodate all of this requires the use of multiple metadata standards, all of which have to be brought together into a single integrated whole.
    Metadata in the Digital Library is a complete guide to building a digital library metadata strategy from scratch, using established metadata standards bound together by the markup language XML. The book introduces the reader to the theory of metadata and shows how it can be applied in practice. It lays out the basic principles that should underlie any metadata strategy, including its relation to such fundamentals as the digital curation lifecycle, and demonstrates how they should be put into effect. It introduces the XML language and the key standards for each type of metadata, including Dublin Core and MODS for descriptive metadata and PREMIS for its administrative and preservation counterpart. Finally, the book shows how these can all be integrated using the packaging standard METS. Two case studies from the Warburg Institute in London show how the strategy can be implemented in a working environment. The strategy laid out in this book will ensure that a digital library's metadata will support all of its operations, be fully interoperable with others and enable its long-term preservation. It assumes no prior knowledge of metadata, XML or any of the standards that it covers. It provides both an introduction to best practices in digital library metadata and a manual for their practical implementation.
    Content
    Inhalt: 1 Introduction, Aims and Definitions -- 1.1 Origins -- 1.2 From information science to libraries -- 1.3 The central place of metadata -- 1.4 The book in outline -- 2 Metadata Basics -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Three types of metadata -- 2.2.1 Descriptive metadata -- 2.2.2 Administrative metadata -- 2.2.3 Structural metadata -- 2.3 The core components of metadata -- 2.3.1 Syntax -- 2.3.2 Semantics -- 2.3.3 Content rules -- 2.4 Metadata standards -- 2.5 Conclusion -- 3 Planning a Metadata Strategy: Basic Principles -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 Principle 1: Support all stages of the digital curation lifecycle -- 3.3 Principle 2: Support the long-term preservation of the digital object -- 3.4 Principle 3: Ensure interoperability -- 3.5 Principle 4: Control metadata content wherever possible -- 3.6 Principle 5: Ensure software independence -- 3.7 Principle 6: Impose a logical system of identifiers -- 3.8 Principle 7: Use standards whenever possible -- 3.9 Principle 8: Ensure the integrity of the metadata itself -- 3.10 Summary: the basic principles of a metadata strategy -- 4 Planning a Metadata Strategy: Applying the Basic Principles -- 4.1 Introduction -- 4.2 Initial steps: standards as a foundation -- 4.2.1 'Off-the shelf' standards -- 4.2.2 Mapping out an architecture and serialising it into a standard -- 4.2.3 Devising a local metadata scheme -- 4.2.4 How standards support the basic principles -- 4.3 Identifiers: everything in its place -- 5 XML: The Syntactical Foundation of Metadata -- 5.1 Introduction -- 5.2 What XML looks like -- 5.3 XML schemas -- 5.4 Namespaces -- 5.5 Creating and editing XML -- 5.6 Transforming XML -- 5.7 Why use XML? -- 6 METS: The Metadata Package -- 6.1 Introduction -- 6.2 Why use METS?.
  20. Oliver, C: Introducing RDA : a guide to the basics after 3R (2021) 0.05 
    0.052203763 = product of:
  0.10440753 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=716,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 716, 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=716)
    0.09582469 = weight(_text_:standards in 716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09582469 = score(doc=716,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.42645568 = fieldWeight in 716, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=716)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Since Oliver's guide was first published in 2010, thousands of LIS students, records managers, and catalogers and other library professionals have relied on its clear, plainspoken explanation of RDA: Resource Description and Access as their first step towards becoming acquainted with the cataloging standard. Now, reflecting the changes to RDA after the completion of the 3R Project, Oliver brings her Special Report up to date. This essential primer concisely explains what RDA is, its basic features, and the main factors in its development describes RDA's relationship to the international standards and models that continue to influence its evolution provides an overview of the latest developments, focusing on the impact of the 3R Project, the results of aligning RDA with IFLA's Library Reference Model (LRM), and the outcomes of internationalization illustrates how information is organized in the post 3R Toolkit and explains how to navigate through this new structure; and discusses how RDA continues to enable improved resource discovery both in traditional and new applications, including the linked data environment.
    LCSH
    Descriptive cataloging / Standards
    Subject
    Descriptive cataloging / Standards

Authors

Languages

  • e 710
  • d 115
  • pt 5
  • m 2
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 786
  • el 80
  • m 23
  • p 8
  • s 6
  • A 1
  • EL 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications