Search (505 results, page 1 of 26)

  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  1. Hider, P.: Information resource description : creating and managing metadata (2012) 0.06 
    0.059190463 = product of:
  0.21703169 = sum of:
    0.016159108 = weight(_text_:of in 2086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016159108 = score(doc=2086,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 2086, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2086)
    0.07616316 = weight(_text_:technological in 2086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07616316 = score(doc=2086,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.41510788 = fieldWeight in 2086, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2086)
    0.12470941 = weight(_text_:innovations in 2086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12470941 = score(doc=2086,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23478 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.5311756 = fieldWeight in 2086, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2086)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    An overview of the field of information organization that examines resource description as both a product and process of the contemporary digital environment. This timely book employs the unifying mechanism of the semantic web and the resource description framework to integrate the various traditions and practices of information and knowledge organization. Uniquely, it covers both the domain-specific traditions and practices and the practices of the 'metadata movement' through a single lens - that of resource description in the broadest, semantic web sense. This approach more readily accommodates coverage of the new Resource Description and Access (RDA) standard, which aims to move library cataloguing into the centre of the semantic web. The work surrounding RDA looks set to revolutionise the field of information organization, and this book will bring both the standard and its model and concepts into focus.
    Content
    Information resource attributes - metadata for information retrieval - metadata sources and quality - economics and management of metadata - knowledge organization systems - the semantic web - books and e-books, websites and audiovisual resources - business and government documents - learning resources - the field of information/knowledge organization.
    LCSH
    Libraries / Technological innovations
    Subject
    Libraries / Technological innovations
  2. White, M.: ¬The value of taxonomies, thesauri and metadata in enterprise search (2016) 0.06 
    0.05868722 = product of:
  0.16138986 = sum of:
    0.05263353 = weight(_text_:higher in 2964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05263353 = score(doc=2964,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2901765 = fieldWeight in 2964, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2964)
    0.0139941955 = weight(_text_:of in 2964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0139941955 = score(doc=2964,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 2964, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2964)
    0.009227889 = weight(_text_:on in 2964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009227889 = score(doc=2964,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2964, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2964)
    0.085534245 = weight(_text_:great in 2964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.085534245 = score(doc=2964,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.43990463 = fieldWeight in 2964, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2964)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    Although the technical, mathematical and linguistic principles of search date back to the early 1960s and enterprise search applications have been commercially available since the 1980s; it is only since the launch of Microsoft SharePoint 2010 and the integration of the Apache Lucene and Solr projects in 2010 that there has been a wider adoption of enterprise search applications. Surveys carried out over the last five years indicate that although enterprises accept that search applications are essential in locating information, there has not been any significant investment in search teams to support these applications. Where taxonomies, thesauri and metadata have been used to improve the search user interface and enhance the search experience, the indications are that levels of search satisfaction are significantly higher. The challenges faced by search managers in developing and maintaining these tools include a lack of published research on the use of these tools and difficulty in recruiting search team members with the requisite skills and experience. There would seem to be an important and immediate opportunity to bring together the research, knowledge organization and enterprise search communities to explore how good practice in the use of taxonomies, thesauri and metadata in enterprise search can be established, enhanced and promoted.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Special issue: The Great Debate: "This House Believes that the Traditional Thesaurus has no Place in Modern Information Retrieval." [19 February 2015, 14:00-17:30 preceded by ISKO UK AGM and followed by networking, wine and nibbles; vgl.: http://www.iskouk.org/content/great-debate].
  3. Cole, T.W..: Using OAI : innovations in the sharing of information (2003) 0.04 
    0.036707543 = product of:
  0.13459432 = sum of:
    0.017701415 = weight(_text_:of in 4766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017701415 = score(doc=4766,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 4766, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4766)
    0.105819434 = weight(_text_:innovations in 4766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.105819434 = score(doc=4766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23478 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.45071742 = fieldWeight in 4766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4766)
    0.011073467 = weight(_text_:on in 4766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011073467 = score(doc=4766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 4766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4766)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    The tradition of union catalogs and similar broad-based, comprehensive bibliographic utilities and tools is one of long standing in the discipline of librarianship. As we move towards greater reliance on digital primary sources, the sharing of information about what we hold in our digital collections intuitively seems of increasing import and value as a way to organize and manage the explosion of online information resources. The Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting enables effective and efficient sharing of digital metadata and is being utilized across a wide spectrum of disciplines and digital library projects. Experience to date gives reason for optimism and provides evidence and confirmation that, even as the technologies we use evolve, the intellectual framework of our tradition persists and continues to be relevant.
  4. Tennant, R.: ¬A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty-first century (2004) 0.04 
    0.035704475 = product of:
  0.1309164 = sum of:
    0.018281942 = weight(_text_:of in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018281942 = score(doc=2845,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
    0.08616877 = weight(_text_:technological in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08616877 = score(doc=2845,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.46964094 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
    0.02646568 = product of:
      0.05293136 = sum of:
        0.05293136 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05293136 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = 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)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    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
  5. Rogers, D.: Cataloguing Internet resources : the evolution of the Dublin Core metadata set (1997) 0.03 
    0.033008028 = product of:
  0.12102944 = sum of:
    0.08562632 = weight(_text_:effect in 903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08562632 = score(doc=903,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.46816036 = fieldWeight in 903, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=903)
    0.016689055 = weight(_text_:of in 903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016689055 = score(doc=903,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 903, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=903)
    0.018714061 = product of:
      0.037428122 = sum of:
        0.037428122 = weight(_text_:22 in 903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037428122 = score(doc=903,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 903, 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=903)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Recently the view has developed that electronic resources require the same level of cataloguing as the physical resources found in libraries, with the effect that a number of guidelines for cataloguing Internet resources have appeared. Describes one such standard for resource description, the Dublin Core metadata set, the ongoing refinement of the metadata elements and the application of the Dublin Core metadata set
    Source
    Cataloguing Australia. 23(1997) nos.1/2, S.17-22
  6. Bueno-de-la-Fuente, G.; Hernández-Pérez, T.; Rodríguez-Mateos, D.; Méndez-Rodríguez, E.M.; Martín-Galán, B.: Study on the use of metadata for digital learning objects in University Institutional Repositories (MODERI) (2009) 0.03 
    0.032443892 = product of:
  0.11896094 = sum of:
    0.08932207 = weight(_text_:higher in 2981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08932207 = score(doc=2981,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.4924459 = fieldWeight in 2981, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2981)
    0.018565401 = weight(_text_:of in 2981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018565401 = score(doc=2981,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 2981, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2981)
    0.011073467 = weight(_text_:on in 2981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011073467 = score(doc=2981,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2981, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2981)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Metadata is a core issue for the creation of repositories. Different institutional repositories have chosen and use different metadata models, elements and values for describing the range of digital objects they store. Thus, this paper analyzes the current use of metadata describing those Learning Objects that some open higher educational institutions' repositories include in their collections. The goal of this work is to identify and analyze the different metadata models being used to describe educational features of those specific digital educational objects (such as audience, type of educational material, learning objectives, etc.). Also discussed is the concept and typology of Learning Objects (LO) through their use in University Repositories. We will also examine the usefulness of specifically describing those learning objects, setting them apart from other kind of documents included in the repository, mainly scholarly publications and research results of the Higher Education institution.
  7. Intner, S.S.; Lazinger, S.S.; Weihs, J.: Metadata and its impact on libraries (2005) 0.03 
    0.031927336 = product of:
  0.087800175 = sum of:
    0.016689055 = weight(_text_:of in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016689055 = score(doc=339,freq=160.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          12.649111 = tf(freq=160.0), with freq of:
            160.0 = termFreq=160.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
    0.021542193 = weight(_text_:technological in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021542193 = score(doc=339,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.117410235 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
    0.035273146 = weight(_text_:innovations in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035273146 = score(doc=339,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23478 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.15023914 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
    0.014295785 = weight(_text_:on in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014295785 = score(doc=339,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.18822956 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    Three experts of the cataloguing world tackle the topic of metadata, explaining fundamental concepts and their accompanying rationales, as well as exploring current developments and future innovations.
    Content
    What is metadata? - Metadata schemas & their relationships to particular communities - Library and information-related metadata schemas - Creating library metadata for monographic materials - Creating library metadata for continuing materials - Integrating library metadata into local cataloging and bibliographic - databases - Digital collections/digital libraries - Archiving & preserving digital materials - Impact of digital resources on library services - Future possibilities
    Footnote
    Rez. in: JASIST. 58(2007) no.6., S.909-910 (A.D. Petrou): "A division in metadata definitions for physical objects vs. those for digital resources offered in Chapter 1 is punctuated by the use of broader, more inclusive metadata definitions, such as data about data as well as with the inclusion of more specific metadata definitions intended for networked resources. Intertwined with the book's subject matter, which is to "distinguish traditional cataloguing from metadata activity" (5), the authors' chosen metadata definition is also detailed on page 5 as follows: Thus while granting the validity of the inclusive definition, we concentrate primarily on metadata as it is most commonly thought of both inside and outside of the library community, as "structured information used to find, access, use and manage information resources primarily in a digital environment." (International Encyclopedia of Information and Library Science, 2003) Metadata principles discussed by the authors include modularity, extensibility, refinement and multilingualism. The latter set is followed by seven misconceptions about metadata. Two types of metadata discussed are automatically generated indexes and manually created records. In terms of categories of metadata, the authors present three sets of them as follows: descriptive, structural, and administrative metadata. Chapter 2 focuses on metadata for communities of practice, and is a prelude to content in Chapter 3 where metadata applications, use, and development are presented from the perspective of libraries. Chapter 2 discusses the emergence and impact of metadata on organization and access of online resources from the perspective of communities for which such standards exist and for the need for mapping one standard to another. Discussion focuses on metalanguages, such as Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) and eXtensible Markup Language (XML), "capable of embedding descriptive elements within the document markup itself' (25). This discussion falls under syntactic interoperability. For semantic interoperability, HTML and other mark-up languages, such as Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) and Computer Interchange of Museum Information (CIMI), are covered. For structural interoperability, Dublin Core's 15 metadata elements are grouped into three areas: content (title, subject, description, type, source, relation, and coverage), intellectual property (creator, publisher, contributor and rights), and instantiation (date, format, identifier, and language) for discussion.
    Other selected specialized metadata element sets or schemas, such as Government Information Locator Service (GILS), are presented. Attention is brought to the different sets of elements and the need for linking up these elements across metadata schemes from a semantic point of view. It is no surprise, then, that after the presentation of additional specialized sets of metadata from the educational community and the arts sector, attention is turned to the discussion of Crosswalks between metadata element sets or the mapping of one metadata standard to another. Finally, the five appendices detailing elements found in Dublin Core, GILS, ARIADNE versions 3 and 3. 1, and Categories for the Description of Works of Art are an excellent addition to this chapter's focus on metadata and communities of practice. Chapters 3-6 provide an up-to-date account of the use of metadata standards in Libraries from the point of view of a community of practice. Some of the content standards included in these four chapters are AACR2, Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), and Library of Congress Subject Classification. In addition, uses of MARC along with planned implementations of the archival community's encoding scheme, EAD, are covered in detail. In a way, content in these chapters can be considered as a refresher course on the history, current state, importance, and usefulness of the above-mentioned standards in Libraries. Application of the standards is offered for various types of materials, such as monographic materials, continuing resources, and integrating library metadata into local catalogs and databases. A review of current digital library projects takes place in Chapter 7. While details about these projects tend to become out of date fast, the sections on issues and problems encountered in digital projects and successes and failures deserve any reader's close inspection. A suggested model is important enough to merit a specific mention below, in a short list format, as it encapsulates lessons learned from issues, problems, successes, and failures in digital projects. Before detailing the model, however, the various projects included in Chapter 7 should be mentioned. The projects are: Colorado Digitization Project, Cooperative Online Resource Catalog (an Office of Research project by OCLC, Inc.), California Digital Library, JSTOR, LC's National Digital Library Program and VARIATIONS.
    Chapter 8 discusses issues of archiving and preserving digital materials. The chapter reiterates, "What is the point of all of this if the resources identified and catalogued are not preserved?" (Gorman, 2003, p. 16). Discussion about preservation and related issues is organized in five sections that successively ask why, what, who, how, and how much of the plethora of digital materials should be archived and preserved. These are not easy questions because of media instability and technological obsolescence. Stakeholders in communities with diverse interests compete in terms of which community or representative of a community has an authoritative say in what and how much get archived and preserved. In discussing the above-mentioned questions, the authors once again provide valuable information and lessons from a number of initiatives in Europe, Australia, and from other global initiatives. The Draft Charter on the Preservation of the Digital Heritage and the Guidelines for the Preservation of Digital Heritage, both published by UNESCO, are discussed and some of the preservation principles from the Guidelines are listed. The existing diversity in administrative arrangements for these new projects and resources notwithstanding, the impact on content produced for online reserves through work done in digital projects and from the use of metadata and the impact on levels of reference services and the ensuing need for different models to train users and staff is undeniable. In terms of education and training, formal coursework, continuing education, and informal and on-the-job training are just some of the available options. The intensity in resources required for cataloguing digital materials, the questions over the quality of digital resources, and the threat of the new digital environment to the survival of the traditional library are all issues quoted by critics and others, however, who are concerned about a balance for planning and resources allocated for traditional or print-based resources and newer digital resources. A number of questions are asked as part of the book's conclusions in Chapter 10. Of these questions, one that touches on all of the rest and upon much of the book's content is the question: What does the future hold for metadata in libraries? Metadata standards are alive and well in many communities of practice, as Chapters 2-6 have demonstrated. The usefulness of metadata continues to be high and innovation in various elements should keep information professionals engaged for decades to come. There is no doubt that metadata have had a tremendous impact in how we organize information for access and in terms of who, how, when, and where contact is made with library services and collections online. Planning and commitment to a diversity of metadata to serve the plethora of needs in communities of practice are paramount for the continued success of many digital projects and for online preservation of our digital heritage."
    LCSH
    Cataloging of electronic information resources
    Cataloging of integrating resources
    Subject
    Cataloging of electronic information resources
    Cataloging of integrating resources
  8. Sutton, S.A.: Conceptual design and deployment of a metadata framework for educational resources on the Internet (1999) 0.03 
    0.031319413 = product of:
  0.11483784 = sum of:
    0.02307982 = weight(_text_:of in 4054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02307982 = score(doc=4054,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.4274153 = fieldWeight in 4054, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4054)
    0.01917981 = weight(_text_:on in 4054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01917981 = score(doc=4054,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 4054, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4054)
    0.072578214 = weight(_text_:great in 4054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072578214 = score(doc=4054,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.37327147 = fieldWeight in 4054, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4054)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    The metadata framework described in this article stems from a growing concern of the U.S. Department of Education and its National Library of Education that teachers, students, and parents are encountering increasing difficulty in accessing educational resources on the Internet even as those resources are becoming more abundant. This concern is joined by the realization that as Internet matures as a publishing environment, the successful management of resource repositories will hinge to a great extent on the intelligent use of metadata. We first explicate the conceptual foundations for the Gateway to Educational Materials (GEM) framework including the adoption of the Dublin Core Element Set as its base referent, and the extension of that set to meet the needs of the domain. We then discuss the complex of decisions that must be made regarding selection of the units of description and the structuring of an information space. The article concludes with a discussion of metadata generation, the association of metadata to the objects described, and a general description of the GEM system architecture
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.13, S.1182-1192
  9. Hansson, K.; Dahlgren, A.: Open research data repositories : practices, norms, and metadata for sharing images (2022) 0.03 
    0.030589618 = product of:
  0.11216193 = sum of:
    0.014751178 = weight(_text_:of in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014751178 = score(doc=472,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 472, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=472)
    0.08818286 = weight(_text_:innovations in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08818286 = score(doc=472,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23478 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.37559783 = fieldWeight in 472, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=472)
    0.009227889 = weight(_text_:on in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009227889 = score(doc=472,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 472, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=472)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Open research data repositories are promoted as one of the cornerstones in the open research paradigm, promoting collaboration, interoperability, and large-scale sharing and reuse. There is, however, a lack of research investigating what these sharing platforms actually share and a more critical interface analysis of the norms and practices embedded in this datafication of academic practice is needed. This article takes image data sharing in the humanities as a case study for investigating the possibilities and constraints in 5 open research data repositories. By analyzing the visual and textual content of the interface along with the technical means for metadata, the study shows how the platforms are differentiated in terms of signifiers of research paradigms, but that beneath the rhetoric of the interface, they are designed in a similar way, which does not correspond well with the image researchers' need for detailed metadata. Combined with the problem of copyright limitations, these data-sharing tools are simply not sophisticated enough when it comes to sharing and reusing images. The result also corresponds with previous research showing that these tools are used not so much for sharing research data, but more for promoting researcher personas.
    Series
    JASIST special issue on digital humanities (DH): C. Methodological innovations, challenges, and new interest in DH
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.2, S.303-316
  10. Dempsey, L.: Metadata: a UK HE perspective (1997) 0.03 
    0.029872734 = product of:
  0.109533355 = sum of:
    0.08421365 = weight(_text_:higher in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08421365 = score(doc=1430,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.46428242 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
    0.010555085 = weight(_text_:of in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010555085 = score(doc=1430,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
    0.014764623 = weight(_text_:on in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014764623 = score(doc=1430,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Reviews the range of UK research into metadata systems funded by the JISC (Joint Information System Committee of the Higher Education Funding Councils), including several subject specific gateways to network resources. Speculates on future directions for metadata research
  11. Craven, T.C.: Variations in use of meta tag descriptions by Web pages in different languages (2004) 0.03 
    0.02979154 = product of:
  0.109235644 = sum of:
    0.07368694 = weight(_text_:higher in 2569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07368694 = score(doc=2569,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.4062471 = fieldWeight in 2569, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2569)
    0.01727841 = weight(_text_:of in 2569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01727841 = score(doc=2569,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 2569, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2569)
    0.01827029 = weight(_text_:on in 2569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01827029 = score(doc=2569,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 2569, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2569)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Sets of top-ranking pages in 20 languages returned by the Google search engine were downloaded and analyzed for presence of meta tag descriptions and lengths of descriptions. Results showed significant differences in proportion of pages with descriptions and in lengths of descriptions depending on language; specifically, pages in major Western European languages showed higher proportions with descriptions, while pages in Chinese showed the lowest proportions. Descriptions were mostly in the languages of the pages, though English descriptions were provided on some non-English pages. With few exceptions, coding schemes adopted for diacritics and non-Roman characters were standard.
  12. Margaritopoulos, M.; Margaritopoulos, T.; Mavridis, I.; Manitsaris, A.: Quantifying and measuring metadata completeness (2012) 0.03 
    0.027011495 = product of:
  0.09904215 = sum of:
    0.064219736 = weight(_text_:effect in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064219736 = score(doc=43,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.35112026 = fieldWeight in 43, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=43)
    0.02374894 = weight(_text_:of in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02374894 = score(doc=43,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.43980673 = fieldWeight in 43, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=43)
    0.011073467 = weight(_text_:on in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011073467 = score(doc=43,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 43, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=43)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Completeness of metadata is one of the most essential characteristics of their quality. An incomplete metadata record is a record of degraded quality. Existing approaches to measure metadata completeness limit their scope in counting the existence of values in fields, regardless of the metadata hierarchy as defined in international standards. Such a traditional approach overlooks several issues that need to be taken into account. This paper presents a fine-grained metrics system for measuring metadata completeness, based on field completeness. A metadata field is considered to be a container of multiple pieces of information. In this regard, the proposed system is capable of following the hierarchy of metadata as it is set by the metadata schema and admeasuring the effect of multiple values of multivalued fields. An application of the proposed metrics system, after being configured according to specific user requirements, to measure completeness of a real-world set of metadata is demonstrated. The results prove its ability to assess the sufficiency of metadata to describe a resource and provide targeted measures of completeness throughout the metadata hierarchy.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.724-737
  13. Niininen, S.; Nykyri, S.; Suominen, O.: ¬The future of metadata : open, linked, and multilingual - the YSO case (2017) 0.03 
    0.026455652 = product of:
  0.097004056 = sum of:
    0.018066432 = weight(_text_:of in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018066432 = score(doc=3707,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 3707, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3707)
    0.018455777 = weight(_text_:on in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018455777 = score(doc=3707,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 3707, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3707)
    0.060481843 = weight(_text_:great in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060481843 = score(doc=3707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 3707, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3707)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is threefold: to focus on the process of multilingual concept scheme construction and the challenges involved; to addresses concrete challenges faced in the construction process and especially those related to equivalence between terms and concepts; and to briefly outlines the translation strategies developed during the process of concept scheme construction. Design/methodology/approach The analysis is based on experience acquired during the establishment of the Finnish thesaurus and ontology service Finto as well as the trilingual General Finnish Ontology YSO, both of which are being maintained and further developed at the National Library of Finland. Findings Although uniform resource identifiers can be considered language-independent, they do not render concept schemes and their construction free of language-related challenges. The fundamental issue with all the challenges faced is how to maintain consistency and predictability when the nature of language requires each concept to be treated individually. The key to such challenges is to recognise the function of the vocabulary and the needs of its intended users. Social implications Open science increases the transparency of not only research products, but also metadata tools. Gaining a deeper understanding of the challenges involved in their construction is important for a great variety of users - e.g. indexers, vocabulary builders and information seekers. Today, multilingualism is an essential aspect at both the national and international information society level. Originality/value This paper draws on the practical challenges faced in concept scheme construction in a trilingual environment, with a focus on "concept scheme" as a translation and mapping unit.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 73(2017) no.3, S.451-465
  14. Arms, C.R.: Available and useful : OAI at the Library of Congress (2003) 0.02 
    0.024838729 = product of:
  0.09107534 = sum of:
    0.064219736 = weight(_text_:effect in 4773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064219736 = score(doc=4773,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.35112026 = fieldWeight in 4773, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4773)
    0.011195358 = weight(_text_:of in 4773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011195358 = score(doc=4773,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 4773, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4773)
    0.015660247 = weight(_text_:on in 4773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015660247 = score(doc=4773,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 4773, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4773)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    The Library of Congress (LC) was an early adopter of the OAI Protocol for Metadata Harvesting. The protocol allows LC to make digitized historical collections available for integration into other services. The protocol was straightforward to implement and the harvesting traffic has no perceptible effect on the primary users of the American Memory project. Now that services can integrate records for cultural heritage resources from many sources, it is time to build on that experience to develop better services. How should the scarce resources available to produce metadata be deployed to most advantage to support discovery in different contexts? How might metadata harvesting be exploited to support new interfaces and enhanced navigation among related resources in digital libraries? This article starts a conversation between metadata providers and service builders by describing LC's experience and questions that have surfaced.
  15. Tallerås, C.; Dahl, J.H.B.; Pharo, N.: User conceptualizations of derivative relationships in the bibliographic universe (2018) 0.02 
    0.02445242 = product of:
  0.08965887 = sum of:
    0.013193856 = weight(_text_:of in 4247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013193856 = score(doc=4247,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 4247, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4247)
    0.015983174 = weight(_text_:on in 4247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015983174 = score(doc=4247,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 4247, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4247)
    0.060481843 = weight(_text_:great in 4247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060481843 = score(doc=4247,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 4247, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4247)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Purpose Considerable effort is devoted to developing new models for organizing bibliographic metadata. However, such models have been repeatedly criticized for their lack of proper user testing. The purpose of this paper is to present a study on how non-experts in bibliographic systems map the bibliographic universe and, in particular, how they conceptualize relationships between independent but strongly related entities. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on an open concept-mapping task performed to externalize the conceptualizations of 98 novice students. The conceptualizations of the resulting concept maps are identified and analyzed statistically. Findings The study shows that the participants' conceptualizations have great variety, differing in detail and granularity. These conceptualizations can be categorized into two main groups according to derivative relationships: those that apply a single-entity model directly relating document entities and those (the majority) that apply a multi-entity model relating documents through a high-level collocating node. These high-level nodes seem to be most adequately interpreted either as superwork devices collocating documents belonging to the same bibliographic family or as devices collocating documents belonging to a shared fictional world. Originality/value The findings can guide the work to develop bibliographic standards. Based on the diversity of the conceptualizations, the findings also emphasize the need for more user testing of both conceptual models and the bibliographic end-user systems implementing those models.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 74(2018) no.4, S.894-916
  16. Roszkowski, M.; Lukas, C.: ¬A distributed architecture for resource discovery using metadata (1998) 0.02 
    0.02275728 = product of:
  0.08344336 = sum of:
    0.059548046 = weight(_text_:higher in 1256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059548046 = score(doc=1256,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.32829726 = fieldWeight in 1256, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1256)
    0.013455146 = weight(_text_:of in 1256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013455146 = score(doc=1256,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2491759 = fieldWeight in 1256, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1256)
    0.010440165 = weight(_text_:on in 1256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010440165 = score(doc=1256,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.13746344 = fieldWeight in 1256, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1256)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    This article describes an approach for linking geographically distributed collections of metadata so that they are searchable as a single collection. We describe the infrastructure, which uses standard Internet protocols such as the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) and the Common Indexing Protocol (CIP), to distribute queries, return results, and exchange index information. We discuss the advantages of using linked collections of authoritative metadata as an alternative to using a keyword indexing search-engine for resource discovery. We examine other architectures that use metadata for resource discovery, such as Dienst/NCSTRL, the AHDS HTTP/Z39.50 Gateway, and the ROADS initiative. Finally, we discuss research issues and future directions of the project. The Internet Scout Project, which is funded by the National Science Foundation and is located in the Computer Sciences Department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, is charged with assisting the higher education community in resource discovery on the Internet. To that end, the Scout Report and subsequent subject-specific Scout Reports were developed to guide the U.S. higher education community to research-quality resources. The Scout Report Signpost utilizes the content from the Scout Reports as the basis of a metadata collection. Signpost consists of more than 2000 cataloged Internet sites using established standards such as Library of Congress subject headings and abbreviated call letters, and emerging standards such as the Dublin Core (DC). This searchable and browseable collection is free and freely accessible, as are all of the Internet Scout Project's services.
    As well developed as both the Scout Reports and Signpost are, they cannot capture the wealth of high-quality content that is available on the Internet. An obvious next step toward increasing the usefulness of our own collection and its value to our customer base is to partner with other high-quality content providers who have developed similar collections and to develop a single, virtual collection. Project Isaac (working title) is the Internet Scout Project's latest resource discovery effort. Project Isaac involves the development of a research testbed that allows experimentation with protocols and algorithms for creating, maintaining, indexing and searching distributed collections of metadata. Project Isaac's infrastructure uses standard Internet protocols, such as the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) and the Common Indexing Protocol (CIP) to distribute queries, return results, and exchange index or centroid information. The overall goal is to support a single-search interface to geographically distributed and independently maintained metadata collections.
  17. Wisser, K.M.; O'Brien Roper, J.: Maximizing metadata : exploring the EAD-MARC relationship (2003) 0.02 
    0.021900805 = product of:
  0.080302946 = sum of:
    0.014751178 = weight(_text_:of in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014751178 = score(doc=154,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
    0.053855482 = weight(_text_:technological in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053855482 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.29352558 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
    0.011696288 = product of:
      0.023392577 = sum of:
        0.023392577 = weight(_text_:22 in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023392577 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 154, 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=154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Encoded Archival Description (EAD) has provided a new way to approach manuscript and archival collection representation. A review of previous representational practices and problems highlights the benefits of using EAD. This new approach should be considered a partner rather than an adversary in the access providing process. Technological capabilities now allow for multiple metadata schemas to be employed in the creation of the finding aid. Crosswalks allow for MARC records to be generated from the detailed encoding of an EAD finding aid. In the process of creating these crosswalks and detailed encoding, EAD has generated more changes in traditional processes and procedures than originally imagined. The North Carolina State University (NCSU) Libraries sought to test the process of crosswalking EAD to MARC, investigating how this process used technology as well as changed physical procedures. By creating a complex and indepth EAD template for finding aids, with accompanying related encoding analogs embedded within the element structure, MARC records were generated that required minor editing and revision for inclusion in the NCSU Libraries OPAC. The creation of this bridge between EAD and MARC has stimulated theoretical discussions about the role of collaboration, technology, and expertise in the ongoing struggle to maximize access to our collections. While this study is a only a first attempt at harnessing this potential, a presentation of the tensions, struggles, and successes provides illumination to some of the larger issues facing special collections today.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  18. Husevag, A.-S.R.: Named entities in indexing : a case study of TV subtitles and metadata records (2016) 0.02 
    0.021558372 = product of:
  0.07904736 = sum of:
    0.05263353 = weight(_text_:higher in 3105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05263353 = score(doc=3105,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2901765 = fieldWeight in 3105, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3105)
    0.010430659 = weight(_text_:of in 3105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010430659 = score(doc=3105,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 3105, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3105)
    0.015983174 = weight(_text_:on in 3105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015983174 = score(doc=3105,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 3105, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3105)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    This paper explores the possible role of named entities in an automatic index-ing process, based on text in subtitles. This is done by analyzing entity types, name den-sity and name frequencies in subtitles and metadata records from different TV programs. The name density in metadata records is much higher than the name density in subtitles, and named entities with high frequencies in the subtitles are more likely to be mentioned in the metadata records. Personal names, geographical names and names of organizations where the most prominent entity types in both the news subtitles and news metadata, while persons, works and locations are the most prominent in culture programs.
    Content
    Vgl.: http:/ceur-ws.org/Vol-1676/paper6.pdf. Other workshop material incl. presentations are available on the website < https://at-web1.comp.glam.ac.uk/pages/research/hypermedia/nkos/nkos2016/programme.html>.
    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]
  19. Handbook of metadata, semantics and ontologies (2014) 0.02 
    0.021509433 = product of:
  0.07886792 = sum of:
    0.010555085 = weight(_text_:of in 5134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010555085 = score(doc=5134,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 5134, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5134)
    0.060930524 = weight(_text_:technological in 5134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060930524 = score(doc=5134,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.3320863 = fieldWeight in 5134, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5134)
    0.0073823114 = weight(_text_:on in 5134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0073823114 = score(doc=5134,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.097201325 = fieldWeight in 5134, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5134)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Metadata research has emerged as a discipline cross-cutting many domains, focused on the provision of distributed descriptions (often called annotations) to Web resources or applications. Such associated descriptions are supposed to serve as a foundation for advanced services in many application areas, including search and location, personalization, federation of repositories and automated delivery of information. Indeed, the Semantic Web is in itself a concrete technological framework for ontology-based metadata. For example, Web-based social networking requires metadata describing people and their interrelations, and large databases with biological information use complex and detailed metadata schemas for more precise and informed search strategies. There is a wide diversity in the languages and idioms used for providing meta-descriptions, from simple structured text in metadata schemas to formal annotations using ontologies, and the technologies for storing, sharing and exploiting meta-descriptions are also diverse and evolve rapidly. In addition, there is a proliferation of schemas and standards related to metadata, resulting in a complex and moving technological landscape - hence, the need for specialized knowledge and skills in this area. The Handbook of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies is intended as an authoritative reference for students, practitioners and researchers, serving as a roadmap for the variety of metadata schemas and ontologies available in a number of key domain areas, including culture, biology, education, healthcare, engineering and library science.
  20. Roy, W.; Gray, C.: Preparing existing metadata for repository batch import : a recipe for a fickle food (2018) 0.02 
    0.02147608 = product of:
  0.078745626 = sum of:
    0.013193856 = weight(_text_:of in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013193856 = score(doc=4550,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 4550, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4550)
    0.053855482 = weight(_text_:technological in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053855482 = score(doc=4550,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.29352558 = fieldWeight in 4550, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4550)
    0.011696288 = product of:
      0.023392577 = sum of:
        0.023392577 = weight(_text_:22 in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023392577 = score(doc=4550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4550, 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=4550)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    In 2016, the University of Waterloo began offering a mediated copyright review and deposit service to support the growth of our institutional repository UWSpace. This resulted in the need to batch import large lists of published works into the institutional repository quickly and accurately. A range of methods have been proposed for harvesting publications metadata en masse, but many technological solutions can easily become detached from a workflow that is both reproducible for support staff and applicable to a range of situations. Many repositories offer the capacity for batch upload via CSV, so our method provides a template Python script that leverages the Habanero library for populating CSV files with existing metadata retrieved from the CrossRef API. In our case, we have combined this with useful metadata contained in a TSV file downloaded from Web of Science in order to enrich our metadata as well. The appeal of this 'low-maintenance' method is that it provides more robust options for gathering metadata semi-automatically, and only requires the user's ability to access Web of Science and the Python program, while still remaining flexible enough for local customizations.
    Date
    10.11.2018 16:27:22

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 451
  • el 68
  • m 22
  • s 17
  • n 3
  • b 2
  • x 2
  • p 1
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications