Search (222 results, page 1 of 12)

  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  1. Social tagging in a linked data environment. Edited by Diane Rasmussen Pennington and Louise F. Spiteri. London, UK: Facet Publishing, 2018. 240 pp. £74.95 (paperback). (ISBN 9781783303380) (2019) 0.05 
    0.0468812 = product of:
  0.12501653 = sum of:
    0.033409793 = weight(_text_:libraries in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033409793 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.25664487 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=101,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
    0.049294014 = weight(_text_:studies in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049294014 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3117402 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Social tagging, hashtags, and geotags are used across a variety of platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, WordPress, Instagram) in different countries and cultures. This book, representing researchers and practitioners across different information professions, explores how social tags can link content across a variety of environments. Most studies of social tagging have tended to focus on applications like library catalogs, blogs, and social bookmarking sites. This book, in setting out a theoretical background and the use of a series of case studies, explores the role of hashtags as a form of linked data?without the complex implementation of RDF and other Semantic Web technologies.
    LCSH
    Libraries and museums / Electronic information resources
    Subject
    Libraries and museums / Electronic information resources
  2. Preminger, M.; Rype, I.; Ådland, M.K.; Massey, D.; Tallerås, K.: ¬The public library metadata landscape : the case of Norway 2017-2018 (2020) 0.04 
    0.041197337 = product of:
  0.16478935 = sum of:
    0.08101445 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08101445 = score(doc=5802,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.6223308 = fieldWeight in 5802, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5802)
    0.0837749 = weight(_text_:case in 5802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0837749 = score(doc=5802,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.48085782 = fieldWeight in 5802, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5802)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    The aim of this paper is to gauge the cataloging practices within the public library sector seen from the catalog with Norway as a case, based on a sample of records from public libraries and cataloging agencies. Findings suggest that libraries make few changes to records they import from central agencies, and that larger libraries make more changes than smaller libraries. Findings also suggest that libraries catalog and modify records with their patrons in mind, and though the extent is not large, cataloging proficiency is still required in the public library domain, at least in larger libraries, in order to ensure correct and consistent metadata.
  3. Tallerås, K.; Massey, D.; Husevåg, A.-S.R.; Preminger, M.; Pharo, N.: Evaluating (linked) metadata transformations across cultural heritage domains (2014) 0.03 
    0.03273997 = product of:
  0.13095988 = sum of:
    0.071807064 = weight(_text_:case in 1588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071807064 = score(doc=1588,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.41216385 = fieldWeight in 1588, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1588)
    0.05915282 = weight(_text_:studies in 1588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05915282 = score(doc=1588,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.37408823 = fieldWeight in 1588, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1588)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    This paper describes an approach to the evaluation of different aspects in the transformation of existing metadata into Linked data-compliant knowledge bases. At Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Science, in the TORCH project, we are working on three different experimental case studies on extraction and mapping of broadcasting data and the interlinking of these with transformed library data. The case studies are investigating problems of heterogeneity and ambiguity in and between the domains, as well as problems arising in the interlinking process. The proposed approach makes it possible to collaborate on evaluation across different experiments, and to rationalize and streamline the process.
  4. Kleeck, D. Van; Langford, G.; Lundgren, J.; Nakano, H.; O'Dell, A.J.; Shelton, T.: Managing bibliographic data quality in a consortial academic library : a case study (2016) 0.03 
    0.032637153 = product of:
  0.13054861 = sum of:
    0.04677371 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04677371 = score(doc=5133,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.35930282 = fieldWeight in 5133, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5133)
    0.0837749 = weight(_text_:case in 5133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0837749 = score(doc=5133,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.48085782 = fieldWeight in 5133, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5133)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    This article presents a case study of quality management for print and electronic resource metadata, summarizing problems and solutions encountered by the Cataloging and Discovery Services Department in the George A. Smathers Libraries at the University of Florida. The authors discuss national, state, and local standards for cataloging, automated and manual record enhancements for data, user feedback, and statewide consortial factors. Findings show that adherence to standards, proactive cleanup of data via manual processes and automated tools, collaboration with vendors and stakeholders, and continual assessment of workflows are key to the management of biblio-graphic data quality in consortial academic libraries.
  5. Lorenzo, L.; Mak, L.; Smeltekop, N.: FAST Headings in MODS : Michigan State University libraries digital repository case study (2023) 0.03 
    0.032637153 = product of:
  0.13054861 = sum of:
    0.04677371 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04677371 = score(doc=1177,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.35930282 = fieldWeight in 1177, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1177)
    0.0837749 = weight(_text_:case in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0837749 = score(doc=1177,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.48085782 = fieldWeight in 1177, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1177)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    The Michigan State University Libraries (MSUL) digital repository contains numerous collections of openly available material. Since 2016, the digital repository has been using Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST) subject headings as its primary subject vocabulary in order to streamline faceting, display, and search. The MSUL FAST use case presents some challenges that are not addressed by existing MARC-focused FAST tools. This paper will outline the MSUL digital repository team's justification for including FAST headings in the digital repository as well as workflows for adding FAST headings to Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) metadata, their maintenance, and utilization for discovery.
  6. Sutton, S.A.: Metadata quality, utility and the Semantic Web : the case of learning resources and achievement standards (2008) 0.03 
    0.027009096 = product of:
  0.108036384 = sum of:
    0.059237804 = weight(_text_:case in 801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059237804 = score(doc=801,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 801, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=801)
    0.048798583 = weight(_text_:studies in 801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048798583 = score(doc=801,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.30860704 = fieldWeight in 801, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=801)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    This article explores metadata quality issues in the creation and encoding of mappings or correlations of educational resources to K-12 achievement standards and the deployment of the metadata generated on the Semantic Web. The discussion is framed in terms of quality indicia derived from empirical studies of metadata in the Web environment. A number of forces at work in determining the quality of correlations metadata are examined including the nature of the emerging Semantic Web metadata ecosystem itself, the reliance on string values in metadata to identify achievement standards, the growing complexity of the standards environment, and the misalignment in terms of granularity between resource and declared objectives.
  7. Smiraglia, R.P.: Content metadata : an analysis of Etruscan artifacts in a museum of archeology (2005) 0.02 
    0.023150655 = product of:
  0.09260262 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 176, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=176)
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 176, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=176)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Metadata schemes target resources as information-packages, without attention to the distinction between content and carrier. Most schema are derived without empirical understanding of the concepts that need to be represented, the ways in which terms representing the central concepts might best be derived, and how metadata descriptions will be used for retrieval. Research is required to resolve this dilemma, and much research will be required if the plethora of schemes that already exist are to be made efficacious for resource description and retrieval. Here I report the results of a preliminary study, which was designed to see whether the bibliographic concept of "the work" could be of any relevance among artifacts held by a museum. I extend the "works metaphor" from the bibliographic to the artifactual domain, by altering the terms of the definition slightly, thus: 1) instantiation is understood as content genealogy. Case studies of Etruscan artifacts from the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology are used to demonstrate the inherence of the work in non-documentary artifacts.
  8. Boydston, J.M.K.; Leysen, J.M.: Observations on the catalogers' role in descriptive metadata creation in academic libraries (2006) 0.02 
    0.023077954 = product of:
  0.092311814 = sum of:
    0.03307401 = weight(_text_:libraries in 232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03307401 = score(doc=232,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.25406548 = fieldWeight in 232, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=232)
    0.059237804 = weight(_text_:case in 232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059237804 = score(doc=232,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 232, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=232)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    This article examines the case for the participation of catalogers in the creation of descriptive metadata. Metadata creation is an extension of the catalogers' existing skills, abilities, and knowledge. As such, it should be encouraged and supported. However, issues in this process, such as cost, supply of catalogers, and the need for further training will also be examined. The authors use examples from the literature and their own experiences in descriptive metadata creation. Suggestions for future research on the topic are included.
  9. Ashton, J.; Kent, C.: New approaches to subject indexing at the British Library (2017) 0.02 
    0.023077954 = product of:
  0.092311814 = sum of:
    0.03307401 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03307401 = score(doc=5158,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.25406548 = fieldWeight in 5158, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5158)
    0.059237804 = weight(_text_:case in 5158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059237804 = score(doc=5158,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 5158, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5158)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    The constantly changing metadata landscape means that libraries need to re-think their approach to standards and subject analysis, to enable the discovery of vast areas of both print and digital content. This article presents a case study from the British Library that assesses the feasibility of adopting FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) to selectively extend the scope of subject indexing of current and legacy content, or implement FAST as a replacement for all LCSH in current cataloging workflows.
  10. Mi, X.M.; Pollock, B.M.: Metadata schema to facilitate linked data for 3D digital models of cultural heritage collections : a University of South Florida Libraries case study (2018) 0.02 
    0.022716753 = product of:
  0.09086701 = sum of:
    0.040091753 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040091753 = score(doc=5171,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.30797386 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    The University of South Florida Libraries house and provide access to a collection of cultural heritage and 3D digital models. In an effort to provide greater access to these collections, a linked data project has been implemented. A metadata schema for the 3D cultural heritage objects which uses linked data is an excellent way to share these collections with other repositories, thus gaining global exposure and access to these valuable resources. This article will share the process of building the 3D cultural heritage metadata model as well as an assessment of the model and recommendations for future linked data projects.
  11. Gartner, R.: Metadata in the digital library : building an integrated strategy with XML (2021) 0.02 
    0.022678455 = product of:
  0.060475882 = sum of:
    0.014174575 = weight(_text_:libraries in 732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014174575 = score(doc=732,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.1088852 = fieldWeight in 732, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=732)
    0.02538763 = weight(_text_:case in 732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02538763 = score(doc=732,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.14572193 = fieldWeight in 732, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=732)
    0.02091368 = weight(_text_:studies in 732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02091368 = score(doc=732,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.13226016 = fieldWeight in 732, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=732)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Metadata in the Digital Library is a complete guide to building a digital library metadata strategy from scratch, using established metadata standards bound together by the markup language XML. The book introduces the reader to the theory of metadata and shows how it can be applied in practice. It lays out the basic principles that should underlie any metadata strategy, including its relation to such fundamentals as the digital curation lifecycle, and demonstrates how they should be put into effect. It introduces the XML language and the key standards for each type of metadata, including Dublin Core and MODS for descriptive metadata and PREMIS for its administrative and preservation counterpart. Finally, the book shows how these can all be integrated using the packaging standard METS. Two case studies from the Warburg Institute in London show how the strategy can be implemented in a working environment. The strategy laid out in this book will ensure that a digital library's metadata will support all of its operations, be fully interoperable with others and enable its long-term preservation. It assumes no prior knowledge of metadata, XML or any of the standards that it covers. It provides both an introduction to best practices in digital library metadata and a manual for their practical implementation.
    Content
    Inhalt: 1 Introduction, Aims and Definitions -- 1.1 Origins -- 1.2 From information science to libraries -- 1.3 The central place of metadata -- 1.4 The book in outline -- 2 Metadata Basics -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Three types of metadata -- 2.2.1 Descriptive metadata -- 2.2.2 Administrative metadata -- 2.2.3 Structural metadata -- 2.3 The core components of metadata -- 2.3.1 Syntax -- 2.3.2 Semantics -- 2.3.3 Content rules -- 2.4 Metadata standards -- 2.5 Conclusion -- 3 Planning a Metadata Strategy: Basic Principles -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 Principle 1: Support all stages of the digital curation lifecycle -- 3.3 Principle 2: Support the long-term preservation of the digital object -- 3.4 Principle 3: Ensure interoperability -- 3.5 Principle 4: Control metadata content wherever possible -- 3.6 Principle 5: Ensure software independence -- 3.7 Principle 6: Impose a logical system of identifiers -- 3.8 Principle 7: Use standards whenever possible -- 3.9 Principle 8: Ensure the integrity of the metadata itself -- 3.10 Summary: the basic principles of a metadata strategy -- 4 Planning a Metadata Strategy: Applying the Basic Principles -- 4.1 Introduction -- 4.2 Initial steps: standards as a foundation -- 4.2.1 'Off-the shelf' standards -- 4.2.2 Mapping out an architecture and serialising it into a standard -- 4.2.3 Devising a local metadata scheme -- 4.2.4 How standards support the basic principles -- 4.3 Identifiers: everything in its place -- 5 XML: The Syntactical Foundation of Metadata -- 5.1 Introduction -- 5.2 What XML looks like -- 5.3 XML schemas -- 5.4 Namespaces -- 5.5 Creating and editing XML -- 5.6 Transforming XML -- 5.7 Why use XML? -- 6 METS: The Metadata Package -- 6.1 Introduction -- 6.2 Why use METS?.
  12. Hooland, S. van; Bontemps, Y.; Kaufman, S.: Answering the call for more accountability : applying data profiling to museum metadata (2008) 0.02 
    0.021978518 = product of:
  0.08791407 = sum of:
    0.071807064 = weight(_text_:case in 2644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071807064 = score(doc=2644,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.41216385 = fieldWeight in 2644, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2644)
    0.01610701 = product of:
      0.03221402 = sum of:
        0.03221402 = weight(_text_:22 in 2644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03221402 = score(doc=2644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2644, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2644)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Although the issue of metadata quality is recognized as an important topic within the metadata research community, the cultural heritage sector has been slow to develop methodologies, guidelines and tools for addressing this topic in practice. This paper concentrates on metadata quality specifically within the museum sector and describes the potential of data-profiling techniques for metadata quality evaluation. A case study illustrates the application of a generalpurpose data-profiling tool on a large collection of metadata records from an ethnographic collection. After an analysis of the results of the case-study the paper reviews further steps in our research and presents the implementation of a metadata quality tool within an open-source collection management software.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  13. Farney, T.: using Google Tag Manager to share code : Designing shareable tags (2019) 0.02 
    0.020807797 = product of:
  0.08323119 = sum of:
    0.040918473 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040918473 = score(doc=5443,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3143245 = fieldWeight in 5443, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5443)
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 5443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=5443,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 5443, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5443)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Sharing code between libraries is not a new phenomenon and neither is Google Tag Manager (GTM). GTM launched in 2012 as a JavaScript and HTML manager with the intent of easing the implementation of different analytics trackers and marketing scripts on a website. However, it can be used to load other code using its tag system onto a website. It's a simple process to export and import tags facilitating the code sharing process without requiring a high degree of coding experience. The entire process involves creating the script tag in GTM, exporting the GTM content into a sharable export file for someone else to import into their library's GTM container, and finally publishing that imported file to push the code to the website it was designed for. This case study provides an example of designing and sharing a GTM container loaded with advanced Google Analytics configurations such as event tracking and custom dimensions for other libraries using the Summon discovery service. It also discusses processes for designing GTM tags for export, best practices on importing and testing GTM content created by other libraries and concludes with evaluating the pros and cons of encouraging GTM use.
  14. Lubas, R.L.; Wolfe, R.H.W.; Fleischman, M.: Creating metadata practices for MIT's OpenCourseWare Project (2004) 0.02 
    0.019019343 = product of:
  0.07607737 = sum of:
    0.057285864 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057285864 = score(doc=2843,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.4400543 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
    0.018791512 = product of:
      0.037583023 = sum of:
        0.037583023 = weight(_text_:22 in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037583023 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    The MIT libraries were called upon to recommend a metadata scheme for the resources contained in MIT's OpenCourseWare (OCW) project. The resources in OCW needed descriptive, structural, and technical metadata. The SCORM standard, which uses IEEE Learning Object Metadata for its descriptive standard, was selected for its focus on educational objects. However, it was clear that the Libraries would need to recommend how the standard would be applied and adapted to accommodate needs that were not addressed in the standard's specifications. The newly formed MIT Libraries Metadata Unit adapted established practices from AACR2 and MARC traditions when facing situations in which there were no precedents to follow.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.138-143
  15. Brugger, J.M.: Cataloging for digital libraries (1996) 0.02 
    0.01873292 = product of:
  0.07493168 = sum of:
    0.05345567 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05345567 = score(doc=3689,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.4106318 = fieldWeight in 3689, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3689)
    0.021476014 = product of:
      0.042952027 = sum of:
        0.042952027 = weight(_text_:22 in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042952027 = score(doc=3689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3689, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Using grant funding, some prominent creators of digital libraries have promised users of networked resources certain kinds of access. Some of this access finds a ready-made vehicle in USMARC, some of it in the TEI header, some of it has yet to find the most appropriate vehicle. In its quest to provide access to what users need, the cataloging community can show leadership by exploring the strength inherent in a metadata-providing system like the TEI header.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.59-73
  16. Tennant, R.: ¬A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty-first century (2004) 0.02 
    0.017042633 = product of:
  0.06817053 = sum of:
    0.037798867 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037798867 = score(doc=2845,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
    0.03037167 = product of:
      0.06074334 = sum of:
        0.06074334 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06074334 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    The current library bibliographic infrastructure was constructed in the early days of computers - before the Web, XML, and a variety of other technological advances that now offer new opportunities. General requirements of a modern metadata infrastructure for libraries are identified, including such qualities as versatility, extensibility, granularity, and openness. A new kind of metadata infrastructure is then proposed that exhibits at least some of those qualities. Some key challenges that must be overcome to implement a change of this magnitude are identified.
    Date
    9.12.2005 19:22:38
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.175-181
  17. Patton, M.; Reynolds, D.; Choudhury, G.S.; DiLauro, T.: Toward a metadata generation framework : a case study at Johns Hopkins University (2004) 0.02 
    0.016646238 = product of:
  0.06658495 = sum of:
    0.032734778 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032734778 = score(doc=1192,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2514596 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
    0.033850174 = weight(_text_:case in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033850174 = score(doc=1192,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.1942959 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    In the June 2003 issue of D-Lib Magazine, Kenney et al. (2003) discuss a comparative study between Cornell's email reference staff and Google's Answers service. This interesting study provided insights on the potential impact of "computing and simple algorithms combined with human intelligence" for library reference services. As mentioned in the Kenney et al. article, Bill Arms (2000) had discussed the possibilities of automated digital libraries in an even earlier D-Lib article. Arms discusses not only automating reference services, but also another library function that seems to inspire lively debates about automation-metadata creation. While intended to illuminate, these debates sometimes generate more heat than light. In an effort to explore the potential for automating metadata generation, the Digital Knowledge Center (DKC) of the Sheridan Libraries at The Johns Hopkins University developed and tested an automated name authority control (ANAC) tool. ANAC represents a component of a digital workflow management system developed in connection with the digital Lester S. Levy Collection of Sheet Music. The evaluation of ANAC followed the spirit of the Kenney et al. study that was, as they stated, "more exploratory than scientific." These ANAC evaluation results are shared with the hope of fostering constructive dialogue and discussions about the potential for semi-automated techniques or frameworks for library functions and services such as metadata creation. The DKC's research agenda emphasizes the development of tools that combine automated processes and human intervention, with the overall goal of involving humans at higher levels of analysis and decision-making. Others have looked at issues regarding the automated generation of metadata. A session at the 2003 Joint Conference on Digital Libraries was devoted to automatic metadata creation, and a session at the 2004 conference addressed automated name disambiguation. Commercial vendors such as OCLC, Marcive, and LTI have long used automated techniques for matching names to Library of Congress authority records. We began developing ANAC as a component of a larger suite of open source tools to support workflow management for digital projects. This article describes the goals for the ANAC tool, provides an overview of the metadata records used for testing, describes the architecture for ANAC, and concludes with discussions of the methodology and evaluation of the experiment comparing human cataloging and ANAC-generated results.
  18. Hooland, S. van; Verborgh, R.: Linked data for Lilibraries, archives and museums : how to clean, link, and publish your metadata (2014) 0.02 
    0.016646238 = product of:
  0.06658495 = sum of:
    0.032734778 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032734778 = score(doc=5153,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2514596 = fieldWeight in 5153, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5153)
    0.033850174 = weight(_text_:case in 5153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033850174 = score(doc=5153,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.1942959 = fieldWeight in 5153, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5153)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    This highly practical handbook teaches you how to unlock the value of your existing metadata through cleaning, reconciliation, enrichment and linking and how to streamline the process of new metadata creation. Libraries, archives and museums are facing up to the challenge of providing access to fast growing collections whilst managing cuts to budgets. Key to this is the creation, linking and publishing of good quality metadata as Linked Data that will allow their collections to be discovered, accessed and disseminated in a sustainable manner. This highly practical handbook teaches you how to unlock the value of your existing metadata through cleaning, reconciliation, enrichment and linking and how to streamline the process of new metadata creation. Metadata experts Seth van Hooland and Ruben Verborgh introduce the key concepts of metadata standards and Linked Data and how they can be practically applied to existing metadata, giving readers the tools and understanding to achieve maximum results with limited resources. Readers will learn how to critically assess and use (semi-)automated methods of managing metadata through hands-on exercises within the book and on the accompanying website. Each chapter is built around a case study from institutions around the world, demonstrating how freely available tools are being successfully used in different metadata contexts. This handbook delivers the necessary conceptual and practical understanding to empower practitioners to make the right decisions when making their organisations resources accessible on the Web. Key topics include, the value of metadata; metadata creation - architecture, data models and standards; metadata cleaning; metadata reconciliation; metadata enrichment through Linked Data and named-entity recognition; importing and exporting metadata; ensuring a sustainable publishing model. This will be an invaluable guide for metadata practitioners and researchers within all cultural heritage contexts, from library cataloguers and archivists to museum curatorial staff. It will also be of interest to students and academics within information science and digital humanities fields. IT managers with responsibility for information systems, as well as strategy heads and budget holders, at cultural heritage organisations, will find this a valuable decision-making aid.
    LCSH
    Libraries and museums / Electronic information resources
    Subject
    Libraries and museums / Electronic information resources
  19. Husevag, A.-S.R.: Named entities in indexing : a case study of TV subtitles and metadata records (2016) 0.02 
    0.016484251 = product of:
  0.065937005 = sum of:
    0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023624292 = score(doc=3105,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 3105, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3105)
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 3105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=3105,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 3105, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3105)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Source
    Proceedings of the 15th European Networked Knowledge Organization Systems Workshop (NKOS 2016) co-located with the 20th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries 2016 (TPDL 2016), Hannover, Germany, September 9, 2016. Edi. by Philipp Mayr et al. [http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1676/=urn:nbn:de:0074-1676-5]
  20. Neumann, M.; Steinberg, J.; Schaer, P.: Web-ccraping for non-programmers : introducing OXPath for digital library metadata harvesting (2017) 0.02 
    0.016484251 = product of:
  0.065937005 = sum of:
    0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023624292 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 3895, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3895)
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 3895, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3895)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Building up new collections for digital libraries is a demanding task. Available data sets have to be extracted which is usually done with the help of software developers as it involves custom data handlers or conversion scripts. In cases where the desired data is only available on the data provider's website custom web scrapers are needed. This may be the case for small to medium-size publishers, research institutes or funding agencies. As data curation is a typical task that is done by people with a library and information science background, these people are usually proficient with XML technologies but are not full-stack programmers. Therefore we would like to present a web scraping tool that does not demand the digital library curators to program custom web scrapers from scratch. We present the open-source tool OXPath, an extension of XPath, that allows the user to define data to be extracted from websites in a declarative way. By taking one of our own use cases as an example, we guide you in more detail through the process of creating an OXPath wrapper for metadata harvesting. We also point out some practical things to consider when creating a web scraper (with OXPath). On top of that, we also present a syntax highlighting plugin for the popular text editor Atom that we developed to further support OXPath users and to simplify the authoring process.

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 196
  • el 25
  • m 16
  • s 14
  • b 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications