Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0025239778 = product of:
  0.010095911 = sum of:
    0.010095911 = weight(_text_:information in 3772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010095911 = score(doc=3772,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3772, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3772)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This entry is a personal remembrance of the emergence and evolution of the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative from its inception in a 1994 invitational workshop to its current state as an international open standards community. It describes the context of resource description in the early days of the World Wide Web, and discusses both social and technical engineering brought to bear on its development. Notable in this development is the international character of the workshop and conference series, and the diverse spectrum of expertise from many countries that contributed to the effort. The Dublin Core began as a consensus-driven community that elaborated a set of resource description principles that served a broad spectrum of users and applications. The result has been an architecture for metadata that informs most Web-based resource description efforts. Equally important, the Dublin Core has become the leading community of expertise, practice, and discovery that continues to explore the borders between the ideal and the practical in the description of digital information assets.

Source

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

0.0020608194 = product of:
  0.008243278 = sum of:
    0.008243278 = weight(_text_:information in 1208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008243278 = score(doc=1208,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 1208, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1208)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

For those of us still struggling with basic concepts regarding metadata in this brave new world in which cataloging means much more than MARC, an article like this is welcome indeed. In this 30.000-foot overview of the metadata landscape, broad issues such as modularity, namespaces, extensibility, refinement, and multilingualism are discussed. In addition, "practicalities" like application profiles, syntax and semantics, metadata registries, and automated generation of metadata are explained. Although this piece is not exhaustive of high-level metadata issues, it is nonetheless a useful description of some of the most important issues surrounding metadata creation and use. The rapid changes in the means of information access occasioned by the emergence of the World Wide Web have spawned an upheaval in the means of describing and managing information resources. Metadata is a primary tool in this work, and an important link in the value chain of knowledge economies. Yet there is much confusion about how metadata should be integrated into information systems. How is it to be created or extended? Who will manage it? How can it be used and exchanged? Whence comes its authority? Can different metadata standards be used together in a given environment? These and related questions motivate this paper. The authors hope to make explicit the strong foundations of agreement shared by two prominent metadata Initiatives: the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) and the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Learning Object Metadata (LOM) Working Group. This agreement emerged from a joint metadata taskforce meeting in Ottawa in August, 2001. By elucidating shared principles and practicalities of metadata, we hope to raise the level of understanding among our respective (and shared) constituents, so that all stakeholders can move forward more decisively to address their respective problems. The ideas in this paper are divided into two categories. Principles are those concepts judged to be common to all domains of metadata and which might inform the design of any metadata schema or application. Practicalities are the rules of thumb, constraints, and infrastructure issues that emerge from bringing theory into practice in the form of useful and sustainable systems.