Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0035694437 = product of:
  0.014277775 = sum of:
    0.014277775 = weight(_text_:information in 4697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014277775 = score(doc=4697,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4697, 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=4697)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The range of metadata activity over this last decade is both extensive and astonishing, and substantiates metadata as an integral part of our digital information infrastructure. This entry begins with a brief history of metadata relating to digital information, followed by an overview of different metadata types, functions, and domain-specific definitions. Next, the family of standards comprising a metadata architecture are defined, followed by an overview of metadata generation processes, applications, and people: this latter section gives particular attention to automatic metadata generation approaches. The following section explores four key metadata models. The conclusion summarizes the entry, highlights a number of significant metadata challenges, and notes efforts underway to address metadata challenges in the new millennium.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.0029745363 = product of:
  0.011898145 = sum of:
    0.011898145 = weight(_text_:information in 1281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011898145 = score(doc=1281,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1281, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1281)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of digital information. 2(2002) no.2,

0.0029745363 = product of:
  0.011898145 = sum of:
    0.011898145 = weight(_text_:information in 4264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011898145 = score(doc=4264,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 4264, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4264)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Metadata is of paramount importance for persons, organizations, and endeavors of every dimension that are increasingly turning to the World Wide Web (hereafter referred to as the Web) as a chief conduit for accessing and disseminating information. This is evidenced by the development and implementation of metadata schemas supporting projects ranging from restricted corporate intranets, data warehouses, and consumer-oriented electronic commerce enterprises to freely accessible digital libraries, educational initiatives, virtual museums, and other public Web sites. Today's metadata activities are unprecedented because they extend beyond the traditional library environment in an effort to deal with the Web's exponential growth. This article considers metadata in today's Web environment. The article defines metadata, examines the relationship between metadata and cataloging, provides definitions for key metadata vocabulary terms, and explores the topic of metadata generation. Metadata is an extensive and expanding subject that is prevalent in many environments. For practical reasons, this article has elected to concentrate an the information resource domain, which is defined by electronic textual documents, graphical images, archival materials, museum artifacts, and other objects found in both digital and physical information centers (e.g., libraries, museums, record centers, and archives). To show the extent and larger application of metadata, several examples are also drawn from the data warehouse, electronic commerce, open source, and medical communities.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information science. Vol.72, [=Suppl.35]

0.002379629 = product of:
  0.009518516 = sum of:
    0.009518516 = weight(_text_:information in 1251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009518516 = score(doc=1251,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1251, 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=1251)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 29(2003) no.2, S.16-19

0.0020821756 = product of:
  0.008328702 = sum of:
    0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 6529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008328702 = score(doc=6529,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 6529, 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=6529)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.11, S.917-924

0.0017847219 = product of:
  0.0071388874 = sum of:
    0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 5725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071388874 = score(doc=5725,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5725, 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=5725)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Although the development and implementation of metadata schemes over the last decade has been extensive, research examining the sum of these activities is limited. This limitation is likely due to the massive scope of the topic. A framework is needed to study the full extent of, and functionalities supported by, metadata schemes. Metadata schemes developed for information resources are analyzed. To begin, I present a review of the definition of metadata, metadata functions, and several metadata typologies. Next, a conceptualization for metadata schemes is presented. The emphasis is on semantic container-like metadata schemes (data structures). The last part of this paper introduces the MODAL (Metadata Objectives and principles, Domains, and Architectural Layout) framework as an approach for studying metadata schemes. The paper concludes with a brief discussion on value of frameworks for examining metadata schemes, including different types of metadata schemes.

0.0016826519 = product of:
  0.0067306077 = sum of:
    0.0067306077 = weight(_text_:information in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067306077 = score(doc=367,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 367, 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=367)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The proliferation of discipline-specific metadata schemes contributes to artificial barriers that can impede interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. The authors considered this problem by examining the domains, objectives, and architectures of nine metadata schemes used to document scientific data in the physical, life, and social sciences. They used a mixed-methods content analysis and Greenberg's () metadata objectives, principles, domains, and architectural layout (MODAL) framework, and derived 22 metadata-related goals from textual content describing each metadata scheme. Relationships are identified between the domains (e.g., scientific discipline and type of data) and the categories of scheme objectives. For each strong correlation (>0.6), a Fisher's exact test for nonparametric data was used to determine significance (p < .05). Significant relationships were found between the domains and objectives of the schemes. Schemes describing observational data are more likely to have "scheme harmonization" (compatibility and interoperability with related schemes) as an objective; schemes with the objective "abstraction" (a conceptual model exists separate from the technical implementation) also have the objective "sufficiency" (the scheme defines a minimal amount of information to meet the needs of the community); and schemes with the objective "data publication" do not have the objective "element refinement." The analysis indicates that many metadata-driven goals expressed by communities are independent of scientific discipline or the type of data, although they are constrained by historical community practices and workflows as well as the technological environment at the time of scheme creation. The analysis reveals 11 fundamental metadata goals for metadata documenting scientific data in support of sharing research data across disciplines and domains. The authors report these results and highlight the need for more metadata-related research, particularly in the context of recent funding agency policy changes.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.8, S.1505-1520