Search (107 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Semantische Interoperabilität"
  1. Gabler, S.: Vergabe von DDC-Sachgruppen mittels eines Schlagwort-Thesaurus (2021) 0.21
    0.20821986 = product of:
      0.4164397 = sum of:
        0.052449387 = product of:
          0.15734816 = sum of:
            0.15734816 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.15734816 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.3359639 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03962768 = queryNorm
                0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
        0.15734816 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15734816 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3359639 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
        0.049294014 = weight(_text_:studies in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049294014 = score(doc=1000,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.3117402 = fieldWeight in 1000, 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=1000)
        0.15734816 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15734816 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3359639 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    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
  2. Vetere, G.; Lenzerini, M.: Models for semantic interoperability in service-oriented architectures (2005) 0.19
    0.1927515 = product of:
      0.514004 = sum of:
        0.07342914 = product of:
          0.22028741 = sum of:
            0.22028741 = weight(_text_:3a in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.22028741 = score(doc=306,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.3359639 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03962768 = queryNorm
                0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
        0.22028741 = weight(_text_:2f in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22028741 = score(doc=306,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3359639 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
        0.22028741 = weight(_text_:2f in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22028741 = score(doc=306,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3359639 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Content
    Vgl.: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5386707&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5386707.
  3. Mitchell, J.S.; Zeng, M.L.; Zumer, M.: Modeling classification systems in multicultural and multilingual contexts (2012) 0.07
    0.07186526 = product of:
      0.14373052 = sum of:
        0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02834915 = score(doc=1967,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
        0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05077526 = score(doc=1967,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 1967, 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=1967)
        0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04182736 = score(doc=1967,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 1967, 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=1967)
        0.022778753 = product of:
          0.045557506 = sum of:
            0.045557506 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.045557506 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03962768 = queryNorm
                0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    This paper reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The paper discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and /or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the DDC (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.
    Source
    Beyond libraries - subject metadata in the digital environment and semantic web. IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn
  4. Faro, S.; Francesconi, E.; Sandrucci, V.: Thesauri KOS analysis and selected thesaurus mapping methodology on the project case-study (2007) 0.06
    0.064870715 = product of:
      0.17298858 = sum of:
        0.09574275 = weight(_text_:case in 2227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09574275 = score(doc=2227,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.5495518 = fieldWeight in 2227, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2227)
        0.055769812 = weight(_text_:studies in 2227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055769812 = score(doc=2227,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.35269377 = fieldWeight in 2227, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2227)
        0.021476014 = product of:
          0.042952027 = sum of:
            0.042952027 = weight(_text_:22 in 2227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042952027 = score(doc=2227,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03962768 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2227, 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=2227)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    - Introduction to the Thesaurus Interoperability problem - Analysis of the thesauri for the project case study - Overview of Schema/Ontology Mapping methodologies - The proposed approach for thesaurus mapping - Standards for implementing the proposed methodology
    Date
    7.11.2008 10:40:22
    Series
    TENDER No 10118 - EUROVOC Studies LOT2
  5. Mitchell, J.S.; Zeng, M.L.; Zumer, M.: Modeling classification systems in multicultural and multilingual contexts (2014) 0.06
    0.059887715 = product of:
      0.11977543 = sum of:
        0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023624292 = score(doc=1962,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 1962, 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=1962)
        0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042312715 = score(doc=1962,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 1962, 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=1962)
        0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034856133 = score(doc=1962,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 1962, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1962)
        0.018982293 = product of:
          0.037964586 = sum of:
            0.037964586 = weight(_text_:22 in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037964586 = score(doc=1962,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03962768 = queryNorm
                0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1962, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1962)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    This article reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The article discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and/or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the Dewey Decimal Classification [DDC] (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.
    Footnote
    Contribution in a special issue "Beyond libraries: Subject metadata in the digital environment and Semantic Web" - Enthält Beiträge der gleichnamigen IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn.
  6. Haslhofer, B.: Uniform SPARQL access to interlinked (digital library) sources (2007) 0.05
    0.047615707 = product of:
      0.12697522 = sum of:
        0.037798867 = weight(_text_:libraries in 541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037798867 = score(doc=541,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 541, 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=541)
        0.06770035 = weight(_text_:case in 541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06770035 = score(doc=541,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.3885918 = fieldWeight in 541, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=541)
        0.021476014 = product of:
          0.042952027 = sum of:
            0.042952027 = weight(_text_:22 in 541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042952027 = score(doc=541,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03962768 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 541, 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=541)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    In this presentation, we therefore focus on a solution for providing uniform access to Digital Libraries and other online services. In order to enable uniform query access to heterogeneous sources, we must provide metadata interoperability in a way that a query language - in this case SPARQL - can cope with the incompatibility of the metadata in various sources without changing their already existing information models.
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:22:46
  7. 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
  8. Dobrev, P.; Kalaydjiev, O.; Angelova, G.: From conceptual structures to semantic interoperability of content (2007) 0.03
    0.033971757 = product of:
      0.090591356 = sum of:
        0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 4607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042312715 = score(doc=4607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 4607, 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=4607)
        0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 4607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034856133 = score(doc=4607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 4607, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4607)
        0.013422508 = product of:
          0.026845016 = sum of:
            0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 4607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.026845016 = score(doc=4607,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03962768 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4607, 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=4607)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Smart applications behave intelligently because they understand at least partially the context where they operate. To do this, they need not only a formal domain model but also formal descriptions of the data they process and their own operational behaviour. Interoperability of smart applications is based on formalised definitions of all their data and processes. This paper studies the semantic interoperability of data in the case of eLearning and describes an experiment and its assessment. New content is imported into a knowledge-based learning environment without real updates of the original domain model, which is encoded as a knowledge base of conceptual graphs. A component called mediator enables the import by assigning dummy metadata annotations for the imported items. However, some functionality of the original system is lost, when processing the imported content, due to the lack of proper metadata annotation which cannot be associated fully automatically. So the paper presents an interoperability scenario when appropriate content items are viewed from the perspective of the original world and can be (partially) reused there.
    Source
    Conceptual structures: knowledge architectures for smart applications: 15th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS 2007, Sheffield, UK, July 22 - 27, 2007 ; proceedings. Eds.: U. Priss u.a
  9. Wake, S.; Nicholson, D.: HILT: High-Level Thesaurus Project : building consensus for interoperable subject access across communities (2001) 0.03
    0.030688863 = product of:
      0.08183697 = sum of:
        0.026727835 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026727835 = score(doc=1224,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.2053159 = fieldWeight in 1224, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1224)
        0.033850174 = weight(_text_:case in 1224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033850174 = score(doc=1224,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.1942959 = fieldWeight in 1224, 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=1224)
        0.02125896 = product of:
          0.04251792 = sum of:
            0.04251792 = weight(_text_:area in 1224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04251792 = score(doc=1224,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03962768 = queryNorm
                0.21775553 = fieldWeight in 1224, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1224)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    This article provides an overview of the work carried out by the HILT Project <http://hilt.cdlr.strath.ac.uk> in making recommendations towards interoperable subject access, or cross-searching and browsing distributed services amongst the archives, libraries, museums and electronic services sectors. The article details consensus achieved at the 19 June 2001 HILT Workshop and discusses the HILT Stakeholder Survey. In 1999 Péter Jascó wrote that "savvy searchers" are asking for direction. Three years later the scenario he describes, that of searchers cross-searching databases where the subject vocabulary used in each case is different, still rings true. Jascó states that, in many cases, databases do not offer the necessary aids required to use the "preferred terms of the subject-controlled vocabulary". The databases to which Jascó refers are Dialog and DataStar. However, the situation he describes applies as well to the area that HILT is researching: that of cross-searching and browsing by subject across databases and catalogues in archives, libraries, museums and online information services. So how does a user access information on a particular subject when it is indexed across a multitude of services under different, but quite often similar, subject terms? Also, if experienced searchers are having problems, what about novice searchers? As information professionals, it is our role to investigate such problems and recommend solutions. Although there is no hard empirical evidence one way or another, HILT participants agree that the problem for users attempting to search across databases is real. There is a strong likelihood that users are disadvantaged by the use of different subject terminology combined with a multitude of different practices taking place within the archive, library, museums and online communities. Arguably, failure to address this problem of interoperability undermines the value of cross-searching and browsing facilities, and wastes public money because relevant resources are 'hidden' from searchers. HILT is charged with analysing this broad problem through qualitative methods, with the main aim of presenting a set of recommendations on how to make it easier to cross-search and browse distributed services. Because this is a very large problem composed of many strands, HILT recognizes that any proposed solutions must address a host of issues. Recommended solutions must be affordable, sustainable, politically acceptable, useful, future-proof and international in scope. It also became clear to the HILT team that progress toward finding solutions to the interoperability problem could only be achieved through direct dialogue with other parties keen to solve this problem, and that the problem was as much about consensus building as it was about finding a solution. This article describes how HILT approached the cross-searching problem; how it investigated the nature of the problem, detailing results from the HILT Stakeholder Survey; and how it achieved consensus through the recent HILT Workshop.
  10. Hollink, L.; Assem, M. van; Wang, S.; Isaac, A.; Schreiber, G.: Two variations on ontology alignment evaluation : methodological issues (2008) 0.03
    0.028408606 = product of:
      0.11363442 = sum of:
        0.071807064 = weight(_text_:case in 4645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071807064 = score(doc=4645,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.41216385 = fieldWeight in 4645, 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=4645)
        0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 4645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04182736 = score(doc=4645,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 4645, 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=4645)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    Evaluation of ontology alignments is in practice done in two ways: (1) assessing individual correspondences and (2) comparing the alignment to a reference alignment. However, this type of evaluation does not guarantee that an application which uses the alignment will perform well. In this paper, we contribute to the current ontology alignment evaluation practices by proposing two alternative evaluation methods that take into account some characteristics of a usage scenario without doing a full-fledged end-to-end evaluation. We compare different evaluation approaches in three case studies, focussing on methodological issues. Each case study considers an alignment between a different pair of ontologies, ranging from rich and well-structured to small and poorly structured. This enables us to conclude on the use of different evaluation approaches in different settings.
  11. Gaona-García, P.A.; Stoitsis, G.; Sánchez-Alonso, S.; Biniari, K.: ¬An exploratory study of user perception in visual search interfaces based on SKOS (2016) 0.02
    0.023150655 = product of:
      0.09260262 = sum of:
        0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 2965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05077526 = score(doc=2965,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 2965, 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=2965)
        0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 2965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04182736 = score(doc=2965,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 2965, 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=2965)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    Repositories are web portals that provide access to learning objects. Resources can be easily located through the use of metadata, an important factor to increase the ease of searching for digital resources in repositories. However, there are as yet no similarly effective methods in order to increase access to learning objects. The main goal of this paper is to offer an alternative search system to improve access to academic learning objects and publications for several repositories through the use of information visualisation and Simple Knowledge Organization Schemes (SKOS). To this end, we have developed a visual framework and have used the Organic.Edunet and AGRIS as case studies in order to access academic and scientific publication resources respectively. In this paper, we present the results of our work through a test aimed at evaluating the whole visual framework, and offer recommendations on how to integrate this type of visual search into academic repositories based on SKOS.
  12. Faro, S.; Francesconi, E.; Marinai, E.; Sandrucci, V.: Report on execution and results of the interoperability tests (2008) 0.02
    0.019311456 = product of:
      0.077245824 = sum of:
        0.055769812 = weight(_text_:studies in 7411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055769812 = score(doc=7411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.35269377 = fieldWeight in 7411, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7411)
        0.021476014 = product of:
          0.042952027 = sum of:
            0.042952027 = weight(_text_:22 in 7411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042952027 = score(doc=7411,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03962768 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7411, 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=7411)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Date
    7.11.2008 10:40:22
    Series
    TENDER No 10118 - EUROVOC Studies LOT2
  13. Garcia Marco, F.J.: Compatibility & heterogeneity in knowledge organization : some reflections around a case study in the field of consumer information (2008) 0.02
    0.01831543 = product of:
      0.07326172 = sum of:
        0.059839215 = weight(_text_:case in 1678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059839215 = score(doc=1678,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.34346986 = fieldWeight in 1678, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1678)
        0.013422508 = product of:
          0.026845016 = sum of:
            0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 1678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.026845016 = score(doc=1678,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03962768 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1678, 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=1678)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    A case study in compatibility and heterogeneity of knowledge organization (KO) systems and processes is presented. It is based in the experience of the author in the field of information for consumer protection, a good example of the emerging transdisciplinary applied social sciences. The activities and knowledge organization problems and solutions of the Aragonian Consumers' Information and Documentation Centre are described and analyzed. Six assertions can be concluded: a) heterogeneity and compatibility are certainly an inherent problem in knowledge organization and also in practical domains; b) knowledge organization is also a social task, not only a lögical one; c) knowledge organization is affected by economical and efficiency considerations; d) knowledge organization is at the heart of Knowledge Management; e) identifying and maintaining the focus in interdisciplinary fields is a must; f the different knowledge organization tools of a institution must be considered as an integrated system, pursuing a unifying model.
    Date
    16. 3.2008 18:22:50
  14. Vocht, L. De: Exploring semantic relationships in the Web of Data : Semantische relaties verkennen in data op het web (2017) 0.02
    0.01807038 = product of:
      0.07228152 = sum of:
        0.020459237 = weight(_text_:libraries in 4232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020459237 = score(doc=4232,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.15716225 = fieldWeight in 4232, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4232)
        0.051822282 = weight(_text_:case in 4232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051822282 = score(doc=4232,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.29745364 = fieldWeight in 4232, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4232)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    After the launch of the World Wide Web, it became clear that searching documentson the Web would not be trivial. Well-known engines to search the web, like Google, focus on search in web documents using keywords. The documents are structured and indexed to ensure keywords match documents as accurately as possible. However, searching by keywords does not always suice. It is oen the case that users do not know exactly how to formulate the search query or which keywords guarantee retrieving the most relevant documents. Besides that, it occurs that users rather want to browse information than looking up something specific. It turned out that there is need for systems that enable more interactivity and facilitate the gradual refinement of search queries to explore the Web. Users expect more from the Web because the short keyword-based queries they pose during search, do not suffice for all cases. On top of that, the Web is changing structurally. The Web comprises, apart from a collection of documents, more and more linked data, pieces of information structured so they can be processed by machines. The consequently applied semantics allow users to exactly indicate machines their search intentions. This is made possible by describing data following controlled vocabularies, concept lists composed by experts, published uniquely identifiable on the Web. Even so, it is still not trivial to explore data on the Web. There is a large variety of vocabularies and various data sources use different terms to identify the same concepts.
    This PhD-thesis describes how to effectively explore linked data on the Web. The main focus is on scenarios where users want to discover relationships between resources rather than finding out more about something specific. Searching for a specific document or piece of information fits in the theoretical framework of information retrieval and is associated with exploratory search. Exploratory search goes beyond 'looking up something' when users are seeking more detailed understanding, further investigation or navigation of the initial search results. The ideas behind exploratory search and querying linked data merge when it comes to the way knowledge is represented and indexed by machines - how data is structured and stored for optimal searchability. Queries and information should be aligned to facilitate that searches also reveal connections between results. This implies that they take into account the same semantic entities, relevant at that moment. To realize this, we research three techniques that are evaluated one by one in an experimental set-up to assess how well they succeed in their goals. In the end, the techniques are applied to a practical use case that focuses on forming a bridge between the Web and the use of digital libraries in scientific research. Our first technique focuses on the interactive visualization of search results. Linked data resources can be brought in relation with each other at will. This leads to complex and diverse graphs structures. Our technique facilitates navigation and supports a workflow starting from a broad overview on the data and allows narrowing down until the desired level of detail to then broaden again. To validate the flow, two visualizations where implemented and presented to test-users. The users judged the usability of the visualizations, how the visualizations fit in the workflow and to which degree their features seemed useful for the exploration of linked data.
    The ideas behind exploratory search and querying linked data merge when it comes to the way knowledge is represented and indexed by machines - how data is structured and stored for optimal searchability. eries and information should be aligned to facilitate that searches also reveal connections between results. This implies that they take into account the same semantic entities, relevant at that moment. To realize this, we research three techniques that are evaluated one by one in an experimental set-up to assess how well they succeed in their goals. In the end, the techniques are applied to a practical use case that focuses on forming a bridge between the Web and the use of digital libraries in scientific research.
    When we speak about finding relationships between resources, it is necessary to dive deeper in the structure. The graph structure of linked data where the semantics give meaning to the relationships between resources enable the execution of pathfinding algorithms. The assigned weights and heuristics are base components of such algorithms and ultimately define (the order) which resources are included in a path. These paths explain indirect connections between resources. Our third technique proposes an algorithm that optimizes the choice of resources in terms of serendipity. Some optimizations guard the consistence of candidate-paths where the coherence of consecutive connections is maximized to avoid trivial and too arbitrary paths. The implementation uses the A* algorithm, the de-facto reference when it comes to heuristically optimized minimal cost paths. The effectiveness of paths was measured based on common automatic metrics and surveys where the users could indicate their preference for paths, generated each time in a different way. Finally, all our techniques are applied to a use case about publications in digital libraries where they are aligned with information about scientific conferences and researchers. The application to this use case is a practical example because the different aspects of exploratory search come together. In fact, the techniques also evolved from the experiences when implementing the use case. Practical details about the semantic model are explained and the implementation of the search system is clarified module by module. The evaluation positions the result, a prototype of a tool to explore scientific publications, researchers and conferences next to some important alternatives.
  15. Landry, P.; Zumer, M.; Clavel-Merrin, G.: Report on cross-language subject access options (2006) 0.02
    0.017995048 = product of:
      0.07198019 = sum of:
        0.040091753 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040091753 = score(doc=2433,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.30797386 = fieldWeight in 2433, 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=2433)
        0.031888437 = product of:
          0.06377687 = sum of:
            0.06377687 = weight(_text_:area in 2433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06377687 = score(doc=2433,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03962768 = queryNorm
                0.32663327 = fieldWeight in 2433, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2433)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    This report presents the results of desk-top based study of projects and initiatives in the area of linking and mapping subject tools. While its goal is to provide areas of further study for cross-language subject access in the European Library, and specifically the national libraries of the Ten New Member States, it is not restricted to cross-language mappings since some of the tools used to create links across thesauri or subject headings in the same language may also be appropriate for cross-language mapping. Tools reviewed have been selected to represent a variety of approaches (e.g. subject heading to subject heading, thesaurus to thesaurus, classification to subject heading) reflecting the variety of subject access tools in use in the European Library. The results show that there is no single solution that would be appropriate for all libraries but that parts of several initiatives may be applicable on a technical, organisational or content level.
  16. Vatant, B.; Dunsire, G.: Use case vocabulary merging (2010) 0.02
    0.017912261 = product of:
      0.071649045 = sum of:
        0.037798867 = weight(_text_:libraries in 4336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037798867 = score(doc=4336,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 4336, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4336)
        0.033850174 = weight(_text_:case in 4336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033850174 = score(doc=4336,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.1942959 = fieldWeight in 4336, 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=4336)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    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.
  17. 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
  18. Binding, C.; Tudhope, D.: Improving interoperability using vocabulary linked data (2015) 0.02
    0.016484251 = product of:
      0.065937005 = sum of:
        0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023624292 = score(doc=2205,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 2205, 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=2205)
        0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 2205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042312715 = score(doc=2205,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 2205, 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=2205)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    The concept of Linked Data has been an emerging theme within the computing and digital heritage areas in recent years. The growth and scale of Linked Data has underlined the need for greater commonality in concept referencing, to avoid local redefinition and duplication of reference resources. Achieving domain-wide agreement on common vocabularies would be an unreasonable expectation; however, datasets often already have local vocabulary resources defined, and so the prospects for large-scale interoperability can be substantially improved by creating alignment links from these local vocabularies out to common external reference resources. The ARIADNE project is undertaking large-scale integration of archaeology dataset metadata records, to create a cross-searchable research repository resource. Key to enabling this cross search will be the 'subject' metadata originating from multiple data providers, containing terms from multiple multilingual controlled vocabularies. This paper discusses various aspects of vocabulary mapping. Experience from the previous SENESCHAL project in the publication of controlled vocabularies as Linked Open Data is discussed, emphasizing the importance of unique URI identifiers for vocabulary concepts. There is a need to align legacy indexing data to the uniquely defined concepts and examples are discussed of SENESCHAL data alignment work. A case study for the ARIADNE project presents work on mapping between vocabularies, based on the Getty Art and Architecture Thesaurus as a central hub and employing an interactive vocabulary mapping tool developed for the project, which generates SKOS mapping relationships in JSON and other formats. The potential use of such vocabulary mappings to assist cross search over archaeological datasets from different countries is illustrated in a pilot experiment. The results demonstrate the enhanced opportunities for interoperability and cross searching that the approach offers.
    Source
    International journal on digital libraries. 2015, S.1-17 DOI: 10.1007/s00799-015-0166-y
  19. Levergood, B.; Farrenkopf, S.; Frasnelli, E.: ¬The specification of the language of the field and interoperability : cross-language access to catalogues and online libraries (CACAO) (2008) 0.02
    0.016302295 = product of:
      0.06520918 = sum of:
        0.04910217 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04910217 = score(doc=2646,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.3771894 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
        0.01610701 = product of:
          0.03221402 = sum of:
            0.03221402 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03221402 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03962768 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2646, 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=2646)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    The CACAO Project (Cross-language Access to Catalogues and Online Libraries) has been designed to implement natural language processing and cross-language information retrieval techniques to provide cross-language access to information in libraries, a critical issue in the linguistically diverse European Union. This project report addresses two metadata-related challenges for the library community in this context: "false friends" (identical words having different meanings in different languages) and term ambiguity. The possible solutions involve enriching the metadata with attributes specifying language or the source authority file, or associating potential search terms to classes in a classification system. The European Library will evaluate an early implementation of this work in late 2008.
    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
  20. Landry, P.: ¬The evolution of subject heading languages in Europe and their impact on subject access interoperability (2008) 0.02
    0.015059397 = product of:
      0.060237586 = sum of:
        0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02834915 = score(doc=2192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 2192, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2192)
        0.031888437 = product of:
          0.06377687 = sum of:
            0.06377687 = weight(_text_:area in 2192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06377687 = score(doc=2192,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03962768 = queryNorm
                0.32663327 = fieldWeight in 2192, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2192)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    Work in establishing interoperability between Subject Heading Languages (SHLs) in Europe is fairly recent and much work is still needed before users can successfully conduct subject searches across information resources in European libraries. Over the last 25 years many subject heading lists were created or developed from existing ones. Obstacles for effective interoperability have been progressively lifted which has paved the way for interoperability projects to achieve some encouraging results. This paper will look at interoperability approaches in the area of subject indexing tools and will present a short overview of the development of European SHLs. It will then look at the conditions necessary for effective and comprehensive interoperability using the method of linking subject headings, as used by the »Multilingual Access to Subject Headings project« (MACS).

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 93
  • d 14

Types

  • a 65
  • el 39
  • m 9
  • s 6
  • x 5
  • r 3
  • p 2
  • More… Less…