Search (21 results, page 1 of 2)

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

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

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?.

0.026893519 = product of:
  0.053787038 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 20) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=20,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 20, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=20)
    0.040054493 = product of:
      0.080108985 = sum of:
        0.080108985 = weight(_text_:organization in 20) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.080108985 = score(doc=20,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.44566956 = fieldWeight in 20, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=20)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article presents Gérard Genette's concept of the paratext by defining the term and by describing its characteristics. The use of the concept in disciplines other than literary studies and for media other than printed books is discussed. The last section shows the relevance of the concept for library and information science in general and for knowledge organization, in which paratext in particular is connected to the concept "metadata."

Source

Knowledge organization. 47(2020) no.6, S.511-519

0.023956172 = product of:
  0.09582469 = sum of:
    0.09582469 = weight(_text_:standards in 133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09582469 = score(doc=133,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.42645568 = fieldWeight in 133, 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=133)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Forschungsdaten sind von zunehmender Wichtigkeit für die Wissenschaft, Forschungsförderer und schließlich auch für die Arbeit an Bibliotheken. Sie sollen nicht nur veröffentlicht werden, sondern nach ihrer Publikation auch auffindbar und nachnutzbar sein, wie von den FAIR-Prinzipien gefordert. Die beschreibenden Metadaten müssen daher in ausreichendem Detail vorliegen, sowie standardisiert und maschinenverwendbar sein, um den Datenaustausch zu ermöglichen. Im Zuge dieser Entwicklung haben sich verschiedene Metadatenschemata und weitere Metadatenstandards sowohl für eine generische Beschreibung von Forschungsdaten, als auch für fachspezifische Metadaten einer Wissenschaftsdisziplin oder -teildisziplin etabliert. In diesem Beitrag wird eine Auswahl von weitverbreiteten generischen Standards sowie exemplarisch einzelne fachspezifische Standards aus der Biologie und den Ingenieurwissenschaft vorgestellt. Dabei wird auch die Kultur des Datenaustausches in den behandelten Fachdisziplinen beleuchtet, in dessen Kontext sich die entsprechenden Metadatenschemata herausbildet haben. Weiterhin wird auch ein kurzer Ausblick auf die Plattformen, die den Austausch von Daten- und Metadatenstandards, sowie ihre Weiterentwicklung und ihre Referenz unterstützen einbezogen. Bei der Forschungsdokumentation und entsprechender Anwendung von Metadatenstandards im Forschungsalltag bestehen weiterhin Hürden aufgrund des Aufwandes. Softwareanwendungen die die Dokumentation erleichtern und in die Metadatenschemata integriert werden könnten werden kurz diskutiert. In all diesen Bereichen können sich Bibliotheken unterstützend oder gestaltend einbringen und ihre Expertise gewinnbringend in Kommunikation mit der Wissenschaft zur Verfügung stellen.

0.019363541 = product of:
  0.077454165 = sum of:
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 5720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=5720,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 5720, 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=5720)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Illinois Digital Heritage Hub (IDHH) gathers and enhances metadata from contributing institutions around the state of Illinois and provides this metadata to th Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) for greater access. The IDHH helps contributors shape their metadata to the standards recommended and required by the DPLA in part by analyzing and enhancing aggregated metadata. In late 2018, the IDHH undertook a project to address a particularly problematic field, Type metadata. This paper walks through the project, detailing the process of gathering and analyzing metadata using the DPLA API and OpenRefine, data remediation through XSL transformations in conjunction with local improvements by contributing institutions, and the DPLA ingestion system's quality controls.

0.016597321 = product of:
  0.066389285 = sum of:
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 5597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=5597,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 5597, 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=5597)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

"Kürzlich erschien Best-Practice-Guide für das Metadatenschema DataCite aufmerksam machen, der in Zusammenarbeit einiger Münchner Institutionen in Verbindung mit dem Modellprojekt "eHumanities - interdisziplinär" entstanden ist: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3559800. Der Guide, der unter Beteiligung des Leibniz-Rechenzentrums der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, der IT-Gruppe Geisteswissenschaften (LMU) und der Universitätsbibliothek der LMU erstellt wurde, stellt eine Empfehlung für den Einsatz von DataCite (https://schema.datacite.org/) an den beteiligten Institutionen dar. Dabei ist er so formuliert, dass er sich problemlos auf andere Institutionen oder Szenarien übertragen lässt. Die einzelnen Teile des Guides sowie Anwendungsbeispiele als XML-Dateien sind auf GitHub veröffentlicht: https://github.com/UB-LMU/DataCite_BestPracticeGuide . Das Repositorium kann und soll gerne für Feedback genutzt werden. Um die Befüllung der DataCite-Felder zu erleichtern, wurde durch die IT-Gruppe Geisteswissenschaften der bereits verfügbare DataCite-Generator aktualisiert und mit Erklärungen aus dem Best-Practice-Guide verlinkt: https://dhvlab.gwi.uni-muenchen.de/datacite-generator/ ; der Quellcode ist ebenfalls verfügbar: https://github.com/UB-LMU/datacite-metadata-generator. Weitere Informationen zum Best-Practice-Guide finden Sie in der Begleitpublikation "Standardisierung eines Standards: Warum und wie ein Best-Practice-Guide für das Metadatenschema DataCite entstand" (http://www.kit.gwi.uni-muenchen.de/?p=42800)."

0.0053105257 = product of:
  0.021242103 = sum of:
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=453,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 453, 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=453)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization. 48(2021) no.3, S.219-230

0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=660,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the online information ecosystem, a content label is an attachment to a piece of content intended to contextualize that content for the viewer. Content labels are information about information, such as fact-checks or sensitive content warnings. Research into content labeling is nascent, but growing; researchers have made strides toward understanding labeling best practices to deal with issues such as disinformation, and misleading content that may affect everything from voting to health. To make this review tractable, we focus on compiling the literature that can contextualize labeling effects and consequences. This review summarizes the central labeling literature, highlights gaps for future research, discusses considerations for social media, and explores definitions toward a taxonomy. Specifically, this article discusses the particulars of content labels, their presentation, and the effects of various labels. The current literature can guide the usage of labels on social media platforms and inform public debate over platform moderation.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.10, S.1365-1386

0.0051229675 = product of:
  0.02049187 = sum of:
    0.02049187 = product of:
      0.04098374 = sum of:
        0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04098374 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.004855188 = product of:
  0.019420752 = sum of:
    0.019420752 = weight(_text_:information in 1030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019420752 = score(doc=1030,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 1030, 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=1030)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the last few years, the size of Linked Open Data (LOD) describing artworks, in general or domain-specific Knowledge Graphs (KGs), is gradually increasing. This provides (art-)historians and Cultural Heritage professionals with a wealth of information to explore. Specifically, structured data about iconographical and iconological (icon) aspects, i.e. information about the subjects, concepts and meanings of artworks, are extremely valuable for the state-of-the-art of computational tools, e.g. content recognition through computer vision. Nevertheless, a data quality evaluation for art domains, fundamental for data reuse, is still missing. The purpose of this study is filling this gap with an overview of art-historical data quality in current KGs with a focus on the icon aspects. Design/methodology/approach This study's analyses are based on established KG evaluation methodologies, adapted to the domain by addressing requirements from art historians' theories. The authors first select several KGs according to Semantic Web principles. Then, the authors evaluate (1) their structures' suitability to describe icon information through quantitative and qualitative assessment and (2) their content, qualitatively assessed in terms of correctness and completeness. Findings This study's results reveal several issues on the current expression of icon information in KGs. The content evaluation shows that these domain-specific statements are generally correct but often not complete. The incompleteness is confirmed by the structure evaluation, which highlights the unsuitability of the KG schemas to describe icon information with the required granularity. Originality/value The main contribution of this work is an overview of the actual landscape of the icon information expressed in LOD. Therefore, it is valuable to cultural institutions by providing them a first domain-specific data quality evaluation. Since this study's results suggest that the selected domain information is underrepresented in Semantic Web datasets, the authors highlight the need for the creation and fostering of such information to provide a more thorough art-historical dimension to LOD.

0.0044597755 = product of:
  0.017839102 = sum of:
    0.017839102 = weight(_text_:information in 1152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017839102 = score(doc=1152,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 1152, 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=1152)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study examines subject and genre representation in metadata that describes information resources created for children and young adult audiences. Both quantitative and limited qualitative analyses were applied to the analysis of WorldCat records collected in 2021 and contributed by the Children's and Young Adults' Cataloging Program at the US Library of Congress. This dataset contains records created several years prior to the data collection point and edited by various OCLC member institutions. Findings provide information on the level and patterns of application of these kinds of metadata important for information access, with a focus on the fields, subfields, and controlled vocabularies used. The discussion of results includes a detailed evaluation of genre and subject metadata quality (accuracy, completeness, and consistency).

0.0034331365 = product of:
  0.013732546 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=787,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 787, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=787)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Bei der Betrachtung von Datensätzen in relationalen Datenbanksystemen, von Datenmengen im Kontext von Big Data, von Ausprägungen gängiger XML-Anwendungen oder von Referenzdatenbeständen im Bereich Information und Dokumentation (IuD), fällt eine wichtige Gemeinsamkeit auf: Diese Bestände benötigen eine Beschreibung ihrer inneren Struktur. Bei diesen Strukturbeschreibungen handelt es sich also sozusagen um "Daten über Daten", und diese können kurz gefasst auch als Metadaten bezeichnet werden. Hierzu gehören Syntaxelemente und ggf. eine Spezifikation, wie diese Syntaxelemente angewendet werden.

0.0030344925 = product of:
  0.01213797 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=63,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 63, 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=63)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Conventional rule-based approaches use exact template matching to capture linguistic information and necessarily need to enumerate all variations. We propose a novel flexible template generation and matching scheme called the principle-based approach (PBA) based on sequence alignment, and employ it for reference metadata extraction (RME) to demonstrate its effectiveness. The main contributions of this research are threefold. First, we propose an automatic template generation that can capture prominent patterns using the dominating set algorithm. Second, we devise an alignment-based template-matching technique that uses a logistic regression model, which makes it more general and flexible than pure rule-based approaches. Last, we apply PBA to RME on extensive cross-domain corpora and demonstrate its robustness and generality. Experiments reveal that the same set of templates produced by the PBA framework not only deliver consistent performance on various unseen domains, but also surpass hand-crafted knowledge (templates). We use four independent journal style test sets and one conference style test set in the experiments. When compared to renowned machine learning methods, such as conditional random fields (CRF), as well as recent deep learning methods (i.e., bi-directional long short-term memory with a CRF layer, Bi-LSTM-CRF), PBA has the best performance for all datasets.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.1, S.32-45

0.0030344925 = product of:
  0.01213797 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=466,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 466, 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=466)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Manuscripts are a crucial form of evidence for research into all aspects of premodern European history and culture, and there are numerous databases devoted to describing them in detail. This descriptive information, however, is typically available only in separate data silos based on incompatible data models and user interfaces. As a result, it has been difficult to study manuscripts comprehensively across these various platforms. To address this challenge, a team of manuscript scholars and computer scientists worked to create "Mapping Manuscript Migrations" (MMM), a semantic portal, and a Linked Open Data service. MMM stands as a successful proof of concept for integrating distinct manuscript datasets into a shared platform for research and discovery with the potential for future expansion. This paper will discuss the major products of the MMM project: a unified data model, a repeatable data transformation pipeline, a Linked Open Data knowledge graph, and a Semantic Web portal. It will also examine the crucial importance of an iterative process of multidisciplinary collaboration embedded throughout the project, enabling humanities researchers to shape the development of a digital platform and tools, while also enabling the same researchers to ask more sophisticated and comprehensive research questions of the aggregated data.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.2, S.240-257

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=721,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 721, 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=721)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.002427594 = product of:
  0.009710376 = sum of:
    0.009710376 = weight(_text_:information in 753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009710376 = score(doc=753,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 753, 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=753)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Inhalt: Editorial - Michael Franke-Maier, Anna Kasprzik, Andreas Ledl und Hans Schürmann Qualität in der Inhaltserschließung - Ein Überblick aus 50 Jahren (1970-2020) - Andreas Ledl Fit for Purpose - Standardisierung von inhaltserschließenden Informationen durch Richtlinien für Metadaten - Joachim Laczny Neue Wege und Qualitäten - Die Inhaltserschließungspolitik der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek - Ulrike Junger und Frank Scholze Wissensbasen für die automatische Erschließung und ihre Qualität am Beispiel von Wikidata - Lydia Pintscher, Peter Bourgonje, Julián Moreno Schneider, Malte Ostendorff und Georg Rehm Qualitätssicherung in der GND - Esther Scheven Qualitätskriterien und Qualitätssicherung in der inhaltlichen Erschließung - Thesenpapier des Expertenteams RDA-Anwendungsprofil für die verbale Inhaltserschließung (ET RAVI) Coli-conc - Eine Infrastruktur zur Nutzung und Erstellung von Konkordanzen - Uma Balakrishnan, Stefan Peters und Jakob Voß Methoden und Metriken zur Messung von OCR-Qualität für die Kuratierung von Daten und Metadaten - Clemens Neudecker, Karolina Zaczynska, Konstantin Baierer, Georg Rehm, Mike Gerber und Julián Moreno Schneider Datenqualität als Grundlage qualitativer Inhaltserschließung - Jakob Voß Bemerkungen zu der Qualitätsbewertung von MARC-21-Datensätzen - Rudolf Ungváry und Péter Király Named Entity Linking mit Wikidata und GND - Das Potenzial handkuratierter und strukturierter Datenquellen für die semantische Anreicherung von Volltexten - Sina Menzel, Hannes Schnaitter, Josefine Zinck, Vivien Petras, Clemens Neudecker, Kai Labusch, Elena Leitner und Georg Rehm Ein Protokoll für den Datenabgleich im Web am Beispiel von OpenRefine und der Gemeinsamen Normdatei (GND) - Fabian Steeg und Adrian Pohl Verbale Erschließung in Katalogen und Discovery-Systemen - Überlegungen zur Qualität - Heidrun Wiesenmüller Inhaltserschließung für Discovery-Systeme gestalten - Jan Frederik Maas Evaluierung von Verschlagwortung im Kontext des Information Retrievals - Christian Wartena und Koraljka Golub Die Qualität der Fremddatenanreicherung FRED - Cyrus Beck Quantität als Qualität - Was die Verbünde zur Verbesserung der Inhaltserschließung beitragen können - Rita Albrecht, Barbara Block, Mathias Kratzer und Peter Thiessen Hybride Künstliche Intelligenz in der automatisierten Inhaltserschließung - Harald Sack

Footnote

Vgl.: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110691597/html. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110691597. Rez. in: Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis 73(2022) H.2-3, S.131-132 (B. Lorenz u. V. Steyer). Weitere Rezension in: o-bib 9(20229 Nr.3. (Martin Völkl) [https://www.o-bib.de/bib/article/view/5843/8714].

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=472,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 472, 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=472)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.2, S.303-316

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 654, 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=654)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A pidgin metadata framework based on the concept of pidgin metadata is proposed to complement the limitations of existing approaches to metadata interoperability and to achieve more reliable metadata interoperability. The framework consists of three layers, with a hierarchical structure, and reflects the semantic and structural characteristics of various metadata. Layer 1 performs both an external function, serving as an anchor for semantic association between metadata elements, and an internal function, providing semantic categories that can encompass detailed elements. Layer 2 is an arbitrary layer composed of substantial elements from existing metadata and performs a function in which different metadata elements describing the same or similar aspects of information resources are associated with the semantic categories of Layer 1. Layer 3 implements the semantic relationships between Layer 1 and Layer 2 through the Resource Description Framework syntax. With this structure, the pidgin metadata framework can establish the criteria for semantic connection between different elements and fully reflect the complexity and heterogeneity among various metadata. Additionally, it is expected to provide a bibliographic environment that can achieve more reliable metadata interoperability than existing approaches by securing the communication between metadata.

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=664,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 664, 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=664)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.10, S.1401-1417