Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Dunsire, G."
  1. Dunsire, G.; Nicholson, D.: Signposting the crossroads : terminology Web services and classification-based interoperability (2010) 0.04
    0.0381531 = product of:
      0.0763062 = sum of:
        0.0763062 = sum of:
          0.04547849 = weight(_text_:subject in 4066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04547849 = score(doc=4066,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
                0.04550679 = queryNorm
              0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 4066, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4066)
          0.03082771 = weight(_text_:22 in 4066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03082771 = score(doc=4066,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.04550679 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4066, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4066)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The focus of this paper is the provision of terminology- and classification-based terminologies interoperability data via web services, initially using interoperability data based on the use of a Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) spine, but with an aim to explore other possibilities in time, including the use of other spines. The High-Level Thesaurus Project (HILT) Phase IV developed pilot web services based on SRW/U, SOAP, and SKOS to deliver machine-readable terminology and crossterminology mappings data likely to be useful to information services wishing to enhance their subject search or browse services. It also developed an associated toolkit to help information services technical staff to embed HILT-related functionality within service interfaces. Several UK information services have created illustrative user interface enhancements using HILT functionality and these will demonstrate what is possible. HILT currently has the following subject schemes mounted and available: DDC, CAB, GCMD, HASSET, IPSV, LCSH, MeSH, NMR, SCAS, UNESCO, and AAT. It also has high level mappings between some of these schemes and DDC and some deeper pilot mappings available.
    Date
    6. 1.2011 19:22:48
  2. Dunsire, G.: Digital decimals : Dewey and online libraries (2008) 0.02
    0.018191395 = product of:
      0.03638279 = sum of:
        0.03638279 = product of:
          0.07276558 = sum of:
            0.07276558 = weight(_text_:subject in 2164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07276558 = score(doc=2164,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04550679 = queryNorm
                0.4470745 = fieldWeight in 2164, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2164)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The paper discusses practical methods of apply DDC to digital library services arising from recent technical developments. These include the use of DDC summaries to create hierarchical browsing and tag cloud interfaces, the utility of DDC as a switching language between different subject heading and classification schemes, and the development of terminology servers for interoperability with digital libraries. The focus is on services based in Europe.
    Source
    New pespectives on subject indexing and classification: essays in honour of Magda Heiner-Freiling. Red.: K. Knull-Schlomann, u.a
  3. Vatant, B.; Dunsire, G.: Use case vocabulary merging (2010) 0.02
    0.017016493 = product of:
      0.034032986 = sum of:
        0.034032986 = product of:
          0.06806597 = sum of:
            0.06806597 = weight(_text_:subject in 4336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06806597 = score(doc=4336,freq=14.0), product of:
                0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04550679 = queryNorm
                0.41819993 = fieldWeight in 4336, product of:
                  3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                    14.0 = termFreq=14.0
                  3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4336)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The publication of library legacy includes publication of structuring vocabularies such as thesauri, classifications, subject headings. Different sources use different vocabularies, different in structure, width, depth and scope, and languages. Federated access to distributed data collections is currently possible if they rely on the same vocabularies. Mapping techniques and standards supporting them (such as SKOS mapping properties, OWL sameAs and equivalentClass) are still largely experimental, even in the linked data land. Libraries use a variety of controlled subject vocabulary and classification schemes to index items in their collections. Although most collections will employ only a single scheme, different schemes may be chosen to index different collections within a library or in separate libraries; schemes are chosen on the basis of language, subject focus (general or specific), granularity (specificity), user expectation, and availability and support (cost, currency, completeness, tools). For example, a typical academic library will operate separate metadata systems for the library's main collections, special collections (e.g. manuscripts, archives, audiovisual), digital collections, and one or more institutional repositories for teaching and research output; each of these systems may employ a different subject vocabulary, with little or no interoperability between terms and concepts. Users expect to have a single point-of-search in resource discovery services focussed on their local institutional collections. Librarians have to use complex and expensive resource discovery platforms to meet user expectations. Library communities continue to develop resource discovery services for consortia with a geographical, subject, sector (public, academic, school, special libraries), and/or domain (libraries, archives, museums) focus. Services are based on distributed searching (e.g. via Z39.50) or metadata aggregations (e.g. OCLC's WorldCat and OAISter). As a result, the number of different subject schemes encountered in such services is increasing. Trans-national consortia (e.g. Europeana) add to the complexity of the environment by including subject vocabularies in multiple languages. Users expect single point-of-search in consortial resource discovery service involving multiple organisations and large-scale metadata aggregations. Users also expect to be able to search for subjects using their own language and terms in an unambiguous, contextualised manner.
  4. Dunsire, G.: ¬The Internet as a tool for cataloguing and classification, a view from the UK (2000) 0.02
    0.016079074 = product of:
      0.032158148 = sum of:
        0.032158148 = product of:
          0.064316295 = sum of:
            0.064316295 = weight(_text_:subject in 6062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.064316295 = score(doc=6062,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04550679 = queryNorm
                0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 6062, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6062)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The use of various Internet services by library cataloguers and subject classifiers is discussed, with special reference to Scotland and the remainder of the United Kingdom. Services include e-mail, FTP, and Websites
  5. Dunsire, G.: Enhancing information services using machine-to-machine terminology services (2011) 0.02
    0.01591747 = product of:
      0.03183494 = sum of:
        0.03183494 = product of:
          0.06366988 = sum of:
            0.06366988 = weight(_text_:subject in 1805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06366988 = score(doc=1805,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04550679 = queryNorm
                0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 1805, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1805)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper describes the basic concepts of terminology services and their role in information retrieval interfaces. Terminology services are consumed by other software applications using machine-to-machine protocols, rather than directly by end-users. An example of a terminology service is the pilot developed by the High Level Thesaurus (HILT) project which has successfully demonstrated its potential for enhancing subject retrieval in operational services. Examples of enhancements in three such services are given. The paper discusses the future development of terminology services in relation to the Semantic Web.
    Source
    Subject access: preparing for the future. Conference on August 20 - 21, 2009 in Florence, the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section sponsored an IFLA satellite conference entitled "Looking at the Past and Preparing for the Future". Eds.: P. Landry et al
  6. Dunsire, G.: Interoperability and semantics in RDF representations of FRBR, FRAD and FRSAD (2011) 0.01
    0.011369622 = product of:
      0.022739245 = sum of:
        0.022739245 = product of:
          0.04547849 = sum of:
            0.04547849 = weight(_text_:subject in 651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04547849 = score(doc=651,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04550679 = queryNorm
                0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 651, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=651)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper describes recent work on registering Resource Description Framework (RDF) versions of the entities and relationships from the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD) models developed by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). FRBR was developed several years before FRAD, and is under-developed in areas which FRAD was expected to cover; FRAD therefore makes significance reference to FRBR. Similarly, FRAD leaves a full treatment of subject authority data to the ongoing development of Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) which was finalised during 2010. Although the FRBR Review Group is charged with consolidating all three models in due course, the RDF versions of FRBR, FRAD, and FRSAD are being created in separate namespaces, with a separate Web Ontology Language (OWL) ontology to connect the three models. The paper discusses interoperability issues arising from this work. Such issues include class definitions and sub-classes, reciprocal properties, and disjoint classes and properties. The paper discusses similar work on the International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD), also maintained by IFLA, and related issues arising from the RDF representation of the metadata element set of RDA: resource description and access, which is based on the FRBR and FRAD models. The work is ongoing, and the paper updates the original conference presentation to the end of October 2010.
  7. Dunsire, G.; Willer, M.: Initiatives to make standard library metadata models and structures available to the Semantic Web (2010) 0.01
    0.009095698 = product of:
      0.018191395 = sum of:
        0.018191395 = product of:
          0.03638279 = sum of:
            0.03638279 = weight(_text_:subject in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03638279 = score(doc=3965,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04550679 = queryNorm
                0.22353725 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The paper discusses the importance of these initiatives in releasing as linked data the very large quantities of rich, professionally-generated metadata stored in formats based on these standards, such as UNIMARC and MARC21, addressing such issues as critical mass for semantic and statistical inferencing, integration with user- and machine-generated metadata, and authenticity, veracity and trust. The paper also discusses related initiatives to release controlled vocabularies, including the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), ISBD, Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF), Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), Rameau (French subject headings), Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), and the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF) as linked data. Finally, the paper discusses the potential collective impact of these initiatives on metadata workflows and management systems.