Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.029893843 = product of:
  0.059787687 = sum of:
    0.051374428 = weight(_text_:digitale in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051374428 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18027179 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.158747 = idf(docFreq=690, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.2849832 = fieldWeight in 1000, 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=1000)
    0.008413259 = weight(_text_:information in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008413259 = score(doc=1000,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1000, 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=1000)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Vorgestellt wird die Konstruktion eines thematisch geordneten Thesaurus auf Basis der Sachschlagwörter der Gemeinsamen Normdatei (GND) unter Nutzung der darin enthaltenen DDC-Notationen. Oberste Ordnungsebene dieses Thesaurus werden die DDC-Sachgruppen der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek. Die Konstruktion des Thesaurus erfolgt regelbasiert unter der Nutzung von Linked Data Prinzipien in einem SPARQL Prozessor. Der Thesaurus dient der automatisierten Gewinnung von Metadaten aus wissenschaftlichen Publikationen mittels eines computerlinguistischen Extraktors. Hierzu werden digitale Volltexte verarbeitet. Dieser ermittelt die gefundenen Schlagwörter über Vergleich der Zeichenfolgen Benennungen im Thesaurus, ordnet die Treffer nach Relevanz im Text und gibt die zugeordne-ten Sachgruppen rangordnend zurück. Die grundlegende Annahme dabei ist, dass die gesuchte Sachgruppe unter den oberen Rängen zurückgegeben wird. In einem dreistufigen Verfahren wird die Leistungsfähigkeit des Verfahrens validiert. Hierzu wird zunächst anhand von Metadaten und Erkenntnissen einer Kurzautopsie ein Goldstandard aus Dokumenten erstellt, die im Online-Katalog der DNB abrufbar sind. Die Dokumente vertei-len sich über 14 der Sachgruppen mit einer Losgröße von jeweils 50 Dokumenten. Sämtliche Dokumente werden mit dem Extraktor erschlossen und die Ergebnisse der Kategorisierung do-kumentiert. Schließlich wird die sich daraus ergebende Retrievalleistung sowohl für eine harte (binäre) Kategorisierung als auch eine rangordnende Rückgabe der Sachgruppen beurteilt.

Content

Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.

Imprint

Wien / Library and Information Studies : Universität

0.002379629 = product of:
  0.009518516 = sum of:
    0.009518516 = weight(_text_:information in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009518516 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 114, 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=114)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0021033147 = product of:
  0.008413259 = sum of:
    0.008413259 = weight(_text_:information in 1029) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008413259 = score(doc=1029,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1029, 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=1029)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to provide a systematic literature review on taxonomy alignment methods in information science to explore the common research pipeline and characteristics. Design/methodology/approach The authors implement a five-step systematic literature review process relating to taxonomy alignment. They take on a knowledge organization system (KOS) perspective, and specifically examining the level of KOS on "taxonomies." Findings They synthesize the matching dimensions of 28 taxonomy alignment studies in terms of the taxonomy input, approach and output. In the input dimension, they develop three characteristics: tree shapes, variable names and symmetry; for approach: methodology, unit of matching, comparison type and relation type; for output: the number of merged solutions and whether original taxonomies are preserved in the solutions. Research limitations/implications The main research implications of this study are threefold: (1) to enhance the understanding of the characteristics of a taxonomy alignment work; (2) to provide a novel categorization of taxonomy alignment approaches into natural language processing approach, logic-based approach and heuristic-based approach; (3) to provide a methodological guideline on the must-include characteristics for future taxonomy alignment research. Originality/value There is no existing comprehensive review on the alignment of "taxonomies". Further, no other mapping survey research has discussed the comparison from a KOS perspective. Using a KOS lens is critical in understanding the broader picture of what other similar systems of organizations are, and enables us to define taxonomies more precisely.

0.0020821756 = product of:
  0.008328702 = sum of:
    0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008328702 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 997, 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=997)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.866-878

0.0017847219 = product of:
  0.0071388874 = sum of:
    0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 5993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071388874 = score(doc=5993,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0017847219 = product of:
  0.0071388874 = sum of:
    0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 1094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071388874 = score(doc=1094,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1094, 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=1094)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System) is a recommendation from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) for representing controlled vocabularies, taxonomies, thesauri, classifications, and similar systems for organizing and indexing information as linked data elements in the Semantic Web, using the Resource Description Framework (RDF). The SKOS data model is centered on "concepts", which can have preferred and alternate labels in any language as well as other metadata, and which are identified by addresses on the World Wide Web (URIs). Concepts are grouped into hierarchies through "broader" and "narrower" relations, with "top concepts" at the broadest conceptual level. Concepts are also organized into "concept schemes", also identified by URIs. Other relations, mappings, and groupings are also supported. This article discusses the history of the development of SKOS and provides notes on adoption, uses, and limitations.

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = 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.

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=977,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

DESIDOC journal of library and information technology. 43(2023) no.1, S.45-54