Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012843607 = product of:
  0.051374428 = sum of:
    0.051374428 = weight(_text_:digitale in 3780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051374428 = score(doc=3780,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18027179 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.158747 = idf(docFreq=690, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.2849832 = fieldWeight in 3780, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.158747 = idf(docFreq=690, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3780)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Wir leben im 21. Jahrhundert, und vieles, was vor hundert und noch vor fünfzig Jahren als Science Fiction abgetan worden wäre, ist mittlerweile Realität. Raumsonden fliegen zum Mars, machen dort Experimente und liefern Daten zur Erde zurück. Roboter werden für Routineaufgaben eingesetzt, zum Beispiel in der Industrie oder in der Medizin. Digitalisierung, künstliche Intelligenz und automatisierte Verfahren sind kaum mehr aus unserem Alltag wegzudenken. Grundlage vieler Prozesse sind lernende Algorithmen. Die fortschreitende digitale Transformation ist global und umfasst alle Lebens- und Arbeitsbereiche: Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft und Politik. Sie eröffnet neue Möglichkeiten, von denen auch Bibliotheken profitieren. Der starke Anstieg digitaler Publikationen, die einen wichtigen und prozentual immer größer werdenden Teil des Kulturerbes darstellen, sollte für Bibliotheken Anlass sein, diese Möglichkeiten aktiv aufzugreifen und einzusetzen. Die Auswertbarkeit digitaler Inhalte, beispielsweise durch Text- and Data-Mining (TDM), und die Entwicklung technischer Verfahren, mittels derer Inhalte miteinander vernetzt und semantisch in Beziehung gesetzt werden können, bieten Raum, auch bibliothekarische Erschließungsverfahren neu zu denken. Daher beschäftigt sich die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (DNB) seit einigen Jahren mit der Frage, wie sich die Prozesse bei der Erschließung von Medienwerken verbessern und maschinell unterstützen lassen. Sie steht dabei im regelmäßigen kollegialen Austausch mit anderen Bibliotheken, die sich ebenfalls aktiv mit dieser Fragestellung befassen, sowie mit europäischen Nationalbibliotheken, die ihrerseits Interesse an dem Thema und den Erfahrungen der DNB haben. Als Nationalbibliothek mit umfangreichen Beständen an digitalen Publikationen hat die DNB auch Expertise bei der digitalen Langzeitarchivierung aufgebaut und ist im Netzwerk ihrer Partner als kompetente Gesprächspartnerin geschätzt.

0.002379629 = product of:
  0.009518516 = sum of:
    0.009518516 = weight(_text_:information in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009518516 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4191, 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=4191)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The report deals with the necessity for developing a National Subject Authority File in russia. Basic approaches creating such a file creation are introduced. The history and main features of the National Library of Russia Subject authority File are described. The report includes information on number of projects being undertaken both in NLR and in Russia

0.002379629 = product of:
  0.009518516 = sum of:
    0.009518516 = weight(_text_:information in 1240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009518516 = score(doc=1240,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1240, 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=1240)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Alexandria Digital Library (ADL) Project has developed a content standard for gazetteer objects and a hierarchical type scheme for geographic features. Both of these developments are based on ADL experience with an earlier gazetteer component for the Library, based on two gazetteers maintained by the U.S. federal government. We define the minimum components of a gazetteer entry as (1) a geographic name, (2) a geographic location represented by coordinates, and (3) a type designation. With these attributes, a gazetteer can function as a tool for indirect spatial location identification through names and types. The ADL Gazetteer Content Standard supports contribution and sharing of gazetteer entries with rich descriptions beyond the minimum requirements. This paper describes the content standard, the feature type thesaurus, and the implementation and research issues. A gazetteer is list of geographic names, together with their geographic locations and other descriptive information. A geographic name is a proper name for a geographic place and feature, such as Santa Barbara County, Mount Washington, St. Francis Hospital, and Southern California. There are many types of printed gazetteers. For example, the New York Times Atlas has a gazetteer section that can be used to look up a geographic name and find the page(s) and grid reference(s) where the corresponding feature is shown. Some gazetteers provide information about places and features; for example, a history of the locale, population data, physical data such as elevation, or the pronunciation of the name. Some lists of geographic names are available as hierarchical term sets (thesauri) designed for information retreival; these are used to describe bibliographic or museum materials. Examples include the authority files of the U.S. Library of Congress and the GeoRef Thesaurus produced by the American Geological Institute. The Getty Museum has recently made their Thesaurus of Geographic Names available online. This is a major project to develop a controlled vocabulary of current and historical names to describe (i.e., catalog) art and architecture literature. U.S. federal government mapping agencies maintain gazetteers containing the official names of places and/or the names that appear on map series. Examples include the U.S. Geological Survey's Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency's Geographic Names Processing System (GNPS). Both of these are maintained in cooperation with the U.S. Board of Geographic Names (BGN). Many other examples could be cited -- for local areas, for other countries, and for special purposes. There is remarkable diversity in approaches to the description of geographic places and no standardization beyond authoritative sources for the geographic names themselves.

0.0017847219 = product of:
  0.0071388874 = sum of:
    0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071388874 = score(doc=310,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 310, 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=310)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Authority files have played an important role in improving the quality of indexing and subject cataloging. Although authorities can significantly improve search by increasing the number of access points, they are rarely an integral part of the information retrieval process, particularly end-users searches. A retrieval prototype, searchFAST, was developed to test the feasibility of using an authority file as an index to bibliographic records. searchFAST uses FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) as an index to OCLC's WorldCat.org bibliographic database. The searchFAST methodology complements, rather than replaces, existing WorldCat.org access. The bibliographic file is searched indirectly; first the authority file is searched to identify appropriate subject headings, then the headings are used to retrieve the matching bibliographic records. The prototype demonstrates the effectiveness and practicality of using an authority file as an index. Searching the authority file leverages authority control work by increasing the number of access points while supporting a simple interface designed for end-users.

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 6105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=6105,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 6105, 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=6105)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die Deutsche Bibliothek, the Library of Congress, and OCLC Online Computer Library Center are jointly developing a virtual international authority file (VIAF) for personal names which links authority records from the world's national bibliographic agencies and will be made freely available on the Web. The goals of the project are to prove the viability of automatically linking authority records from different national authority files and to demonstrate its benefits. The authority and bibliographic files from the Library of Congress and Die Deutsche Bibliothek were used to create the initial VIAF which contains over six million names with over a half million links. A key aspect of the project was the development of automated name matching algorithms which use information from both authority records and the corresponding bibliographic records. The practicality of algorithmically linking the personal names between national authority files was demonstrated; seventy percent of the authority records for personal names common to both files were automatically linked with an error rate of less than one percent. The long-term goal of the VIAF project is to combine the authoritative names from many national libraries and other significant sources into a shared global authority service.

0.0012880121 = product of:
  0.0051520485 = sum of:
    0.0051520485 = weight(_text_:information in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0051520485 = score(doc=1166,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.083984874 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article presents an overview of the LEAF project (Linking and Exploring Authority Files)1, which has set out to provide a framework for international, collaborative work in the sector of authority data with respect to authority control. Elaborating the virtues of authority control in today's Web environment is an almost futile exercise, since so much has been said and written about it in the last few years.2 The World Wide Web is generally understood to be poorly structured-both with regard to content and to locating required information. Highly structured databases might be viewed as small islands of precision within this chaotic environment. Though the Web in general or any particular structured database would greatly benefit from increased authority control, it should be noted that our following considerations only refer to authority control with regard to databases of "memory institutions" (i.e., libraries, archives, and museums). Moreover, when talking about authority records, we exclusively refer to personal name authority records that describe a specific person. Although different types of authority records could indeed be used in similar ways to the ones presented in this article, discussing those different types is outside the scope of both the LEAF project and this article. Personal name authority records-as are all other "authorities"-are maintained as separate records and linked to various kinds of descriptive records. Name authority records are usually either kept in independent databases or in separate tables in the database containing the descriptive records. This practice points at a crucial benefit: by linking any number of descriptive records to an authorized name record, the records related to this entity are collocated in the database. Variant forms of the authorized name are referenced in the authority records and thus ensure the consistency of the database while enabling search and retrieval operations that produce accurate results. On one hand, authority control may be viewed as a positive prerequisite of a consistent catalogue; on the other, the creation of new authority records is a very time consuming and expensive undertaking. As a consequence, various models of providing access to existing authority records have emerged: the Library of Congress and the French National Library (Bibliothèque nationale de France), for example, make their authority records available to all via a web-based search service.3 In Germany, the Personal Name Authority File (PND, Personennamendatei4) maintained by the German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek, Frankfurt/Main) offers a different approach to shared access: within a closed network, participating institutions have online access to their pooled data. The number of recent projects and initiatives that have addressed the issue of authority control in one way or another is considerable.5 Two important current initiatives should be mentioned here: The Name Authority Cooperative (NACO) and Virtual International Authority File (VIAF).
NACO was established in 1976 and is hosted by the Library of Congress. At the beginning of 2003, nearly 400 institutions were involved in this undertaking, including 43 institutions from outside the United States.6 Despite the enormous success of NACO and the impressive annual growth of the initiative, there are requirements for participation that form an obstacle for many institutions: they have to follow the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) and employ the MARC217 data format. Participating institutions also have to belong to either OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) or RLG (Research Libraries Group) in order to be able to contribute records, and they have to provide a specified minimum number of authority records per year. A recent proof of concept project of the Library of Congress, OCLC and the German National Library-Virtual International Authority File (VIAF)8-will, in its first phase, test automatic linking of the records of the Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF) and the German Personal Name Authority File by using matching algorithms and software developed by OCLC. The results are expected to form the basis of a "Virtual International Authority File". The project will then test the maintenance of the virtual authority file by employing the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)9 to harvest the metadata for new, updated, and deleted records. When using the "Virtual International Authority File" a cataloguer will be able to check the system to see whether the authority record he wants to establish already exists. The final phase of the project will test possibilities for displaying records in the preferred language and script of the end user. Currently, there are still some clear limitations associated with the ways in which authority records are used by memory institutions. One of the main problems has to do with limited access: generally only large institutions or those that are part of a library network have unlimited online access to permanently updated authority records. Smaller institutions outside these networks usually have to fall back on less efficient ways of obtaining authority data, or have no access at all. Cross-domain sharing of authority data between libraries, archives, museums and other memory institutions simply does not happen at present. Public users are, by and large, not even aware that such things as name authority records exist and are excluded from access to these information resources.