Search (175 results, page 1 of 9)

0.029909339 = product of:
  0.20936537 = sum of:
    0.19800024 = weight(_text_:1938 in 2275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19800024 = score(doc=2275,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21236381 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.43879 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.9323634 = fieldWeight in 2275, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.43879 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2275)
    0.011365123 = product of:
      0.03409537 = sum of:
        0.03409537 = weight(_text_:22 in 2275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03409537 = score(doc=2275,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2275, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2275)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Content

Bericht über den Workshop, der am 22. u. 23.6.98 in der SUB Göttingen stattfand

Source

Bibliotheksdienst. 32(1998) H.11, S.1931-1938

0.0070326724 = product of:
  0.049228705 = sum of:
    0.041200902 = weight(_text_:representation in 1573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041200902 = score(doc=1573,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.35583997 = fieldWeight in 1573, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1573)
    0.008027801 = product of:
      0.024083402 = sum of:
        0.024083402 = weight(_text_:29 in 1573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024083402 = score(doc=1573,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1573, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1573)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Based on the concept of an application profile as proposed by the Dublin Core initiative, the work presented in this manuscript attempts to propose an application profile for the Earth Observation images. This approach aims to provide an open and extensible model facilitating the sharing and management of distributed images within decentralized architectures. It is intended to eventually cover the needs of discovery, localization, consulting, preservation and processing of data for decision support. We are using the Singapore framework recommendations to build the application profile. A particular focus on the formalization and representation of Description Set Profile (DSP) in RDF is proposed.

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 8th Research Conference, MTSR 2014, Karlsruhe, Germany, November 27-29, 2014, Proceedings. Eds.: S. Closs et al

0.0070223557 = product of:
  0.049156487 = sum of:
    0.041200902 = weight(_text_:representation in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041200902 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.35583997 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
    0.007955586 = product of:
      0.023866756 = sum of:
        0.023866756 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023866756 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Conceptual Knowledge Markup Language (CKML), an application of XML, is a new standard being promoted for the specification of online conceptual knowledge (Kent and Shrivastava, 1998). CKML follows the philosophy of Conceptual Knowledge Processing (Wille, 1982), a principled approach to knowledge representation and data analysis, which advocates the development of methodologies and techniques to support people in their rational thinking, judgement and actions. CKML was developed and is being used in the WAVE networked information discovery and retrieval system (Kent and Neuss, 1994) as a standard for the specification of conceptual knowledge

Date

30.12.2001 16:22:41

0.0067647635 = product of:
  0.047353342 = sum of:
    0.041619197 = weight(_text_:representation in 2192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041619197 = score(doc=2192,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.35945266 = fieldWeight in 2192, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2192)
    0.005734144 = product of:
      0.017202431 = sum of:
        0.017202431 = weight(_text_:29 in 2192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017202431 = score(doc=2192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2192, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2192)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 8th Metadata and Semantics Research Conference, MTSR 2014, held in Karlsruhe, Germany, in November 2014. The 23 full papers and 9 short papers presented were carefully reviewed and selected from 57 submissions. The papers are organized in several sessions and tracks. They cover the following topics: metadata and linked data: tools and models; (meta) data quality assessment and curation; semantic interoperability, ontology-based data access and representation; big data and digital libraries in health, science and technology; metadata and semantics for open repositories, research information systems and data infrastructure; metadata and semantics for cultural collections and applications; semantics for agriculture, food and environment.

Content

Metadata and linked data.- Tools and models.- (Meta)data quality assessment and curation.- Semantic interoperability, ontology-based data access and representation.- Big data and digital libraries in health, science and technology.- Metadata and semantics for open repositories, research information systems and data infrastructure.- Metadata and semantics for cultural collections and applications.- Semantics for agriculture, food and environment.

0.006019162 = product of:
  0.042134132 = sum of:
    0.03531506 = weight(_text_:representation in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03531506 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
    0.006819073 = product of:
      0.02045722 = sum of:
        0.02045722 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02045722 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Collection-level metadata has the potential to provide important information about the features and purpose of individual collections. This paper reports on a content analysis of collection records in an aggregation of cultural heritage collections. The findings show that the free-text Description field often provides more accurate and complete representation of subjects and object types than the specified fields. Properties such as importance, uniqueness, comprehensiveness, provenance, and creator are articulated, as well as other vital contextual information about the intentions of a collector and the value of a collection, as a whole, for scholarly users. The results demonstrate that the semantically rich free-text Description field is essential to understanding the context of collections in large aggregations and can serve as a source of data for enhancing and customizing controlled vocabularies.

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

0.0059919497 = product of:
  0.083887294 = sum of:
    0.083887294 = weight(_text_:mental in 662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083887294 = score(doc=662,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16438161 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.5103204 = fieldWeight in 662, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=662)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This investigation was undertaken to explore the prospect of using the repertory grid structured interview technique as a tool for creating metadata. The following question is considered: Could Repertory Grid technique be used as a tool in the creation of metadata? It is postulated that repertory grid technique may be used as a tool for creating metadata labels, or tags, where the labels or tags describe entities, which may be images, documents or expressions. Repertory grid technique can provide a method for examining the detail about an individual's mental models, or personal construct systems of lifeworld entities, which may include images, documents or expressions. The question were considered by looking at the results of an earlier study, which explored the personal constructs of systems analysts using the repertory grid technique to examine the mental conceptualizations that determine the extent of difference in conceptualization. Categorical core areas of expressions used during software requirements development emerge through classification of the conceptualizations of expressions elicited via the repertory grid interviews. Repertory grid also reveals, through cluster analysis, the subtle difference in the way each participant conceptually related one expression to another expression. The differences in conceptual relationship of expressions or concepts could represent insight about how people view entities of a lifeworld. In a situation where metadata are used to label entities of a lifeworld for organization and retrieval of information, the differences in conceptual relationships might influence the metadata created and how they are used in the lifeworld for the organization and retrieval of information.

0.005045009 = product of:
  0.07063012 = sum of:
    0.07063012 = weight(_text_:representation in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07063012 = score(doc=5070,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.6100114 = fieldWeight in 5070, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5070)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Much research has focused on the problem of knowledge accessibility, sharing and reuse. Specific languages (e.g. KIF, CG, RDF) and ontologies have been proposed. Common characteristics, conventions or ontological distinctions are beginning to emerge. Since knowledge providers (humans and software agents) must follow common conventions for the knowledge to be widely accessed and re-used, we propose lexical, structural, semantic and ontological conventions based on various knowledge representation projects and our own research. These are minimal conventions that can be followed by most and cover the most common knowledge representation cases. However, agreement and refinements are still required. We also show that a notation can be both readable and expressive by quickly presenting two new notations -- Formalized English (FE) and Frame-CG (FCG) - derived from the CG linear form [9] and Frame-Logics [4]. These notations support the above conventions, and are implemented in our Web-based knowledge representation and document indexation tool, WebKB¹ [7]

0.005015969 = product of:
  0.03511178 = sum of:
    0.02942922 = weight(_text_:representation in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02942922 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
    0.0056825615 = product of:
      0.017047685 = sum of:
        0.017047685 = weight(_text_:22 in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017047685 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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

0.005015969 = product of:
  0.03511178 = sum of:
    0.02942922 = weight(_text_:representation in 2624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02942922 = score(doc=2624,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 2624, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2624)
    0.0056825615 = product of:
      0.017047685 = sum of:
        0.017047685 = weight(_text_:22 in 2624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017047685 = score(doc=2624,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2624, 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=2624)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This paper describes the information properties of museum specimen labels and machine learning tools to automatically extract Darwin Core (DwC) and other metadata from these labels processed through Optical Character Recognition (OCR). The DwC is a metadata profile describing the core set of access points for search and retrieval of natural history collections and observation databases. Using the HERBIS Learning System (HLS) we extract 74 independent elements from these labels. The automated text extraction tools are provided as a web service so that users can reference digital images of specimens and receive back an extended Darwin Core XML representation of the content of the label. This automated extraction task is made more difficult by the high variability of museum label formats, OCR errors and the open class nature of some elements. In this paper we introduce our overall system architecture, and variability robust solutions including, the application of Hidden Markov and Naïve Bayes machine learning models, data cleaning, use of field element identifiers, and specialist learning models. The techniques developed here could be adapted to any metadata extraction situation with noisy text and weakly ordered elements.

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

0.0035673599 = product of:
  0.049943037 = sum of:
    0.049943037 = weight(_text_:representation in 1152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049943037 = score(doc=1152,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.4313432 = fieldWeight in 1152, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1152)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This study examines subject and genre representation in metadata that describes information resources created for children and young adult audiences. Both quantitative and limited qualitative analyses were applied to the analysis of WorldCat records collected in 2021 and contributed by the Children's and Young Adults' Cataloging Program at the US Library of Congress. This dataset contains records created several years prior to the data collection point and edited by various OCLC member institutions. Findings provide information on the level and patterns of application of these kinds of metadata important for information access, with a focus on the fields, subfields, and controlled vocabularies used. The discussion of results includes a detailed evaluation of genre and subject metadata quality (accuracy, completeness, and consistency).

0.0035111778 = product of:
  0.024578243 = sum of:
    0.020600451 = weight(_text_:representation in 2668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020600451 = score(doc=2668,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.17791998 = fieldWeight in 2668, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2668)
    0.003977793 = product of:
      0.011933378 = sum of:
        0.011933378 = weight(_text_:22 in 2668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011933378 = score(doc=2668,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2668, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2668)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Metadata is a key aspect of our evolving infrastructure for information management, social computing, and scientific collaboration. DC-2008 will focus on metadata challenges, solutions, and innovation in initiatives and activities underlying semantic and social applications. Metadata is part of the fabric of social computing, which includes the use of wikis, blogs, and tagging for collaboration and participation. Metadata also underlies the development of semantic applications, and the Semantic Web - the representation and integration of multimedia knowledge structures on the basis of semantic models. These two trends flow together in applications such as Wikipedia, where authors collectively create structured information that can be extracted and used to enhance access to and use of information sources. Recent discussion has focused on how existing bibliographic standards can be expressed as Semantic Web vocabularies to facilitate the ingration of library and cultural heritage data with other types of data. Harnessing the efforts of content providers and end-users to link, tag, edit, and describe their information in interoperable ways ("participatory metadata") is a key step towards providing knowledge environments that are scalable, self-correcting, and evolvable. DC-2008 will explore conceptual and practical issues in the development and deployment of semantic and social applications to meet the needs of specific communities of practice.

0.0033633395 = product of:
  0.04708675 = sum of:
    0.04708675 = weight(_text_:representation in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04708675 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.40667427 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The recent increase in electronic publishing has led many in the library community to consider altering standards for bibliographic data to promote greater compatibility between digital works and their bibliographic representation. SGML has been prominently mentioned as a mechanism for encoding bibliographic data. Examines the problems and potential of applying SGML to to USMARC record standard, with a particular emphasis on issues of field order and repeatability, character set encoding, and obsolete fields

0.0029727998 = product of:
  0.041619197 = sum of:
    0.041619197 = weight(_text_:representation in 3372) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041619197 = score(doc=3372,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.35945266 = fieldWeight in 3372, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3372)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Europeana provides access to more than 54 million cultural heritage objects through its portal Europeana Collections. It is crucial for Europeana to be recognized by search engines as a trusted authoritative repository of cultural heritage objects. Indeed, even though its portal is the main entry point, most Europeana users come to it via search engines. Europeana Collections is fuelled by metadata describing cultural objects, represented in the Europeana Data Model (EDM). This paper presents the research and consequent recommendations for publishing Europeana metadata using the Schema.org vocabulary and best practices. Schema.org html embedded metadata to be consumed by search engines to power rich services (such as Google Knowledge Graph). Schema.org is an open and widely adopted initiative (used by over 12 million domains) backed by Google, Bing, Yahoo!, and Yandex, for sharing metadata across the web It underpins the emergence of new web techniques, such as so called Semantic SEO. Our research addressed the representation of the embedded metadata as part of the Europeana HTML pages and sitemaps so that the re-use of this data can be optimized. The practical objective of our work is to produce a Schema.org representation of Europeana resources described in EDM, being the richest as possible and tailored to Europeana's realities and user needs as well the search engines and their users.

0.0029429218 = product of:
  0.041200902 = sum of:
    0.041200902 = weight(_text_:representation in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041200902 = score(doc=5896,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.35583997 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.0029127372 = product of:
  0.04077832 = sum of:
    0.04077832 = weight(_text_:representation in 2731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04077832 = score(doc=2731,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.35219026 = fieldWeight in 2731, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2731)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

We propose an extension of a mediator architecture. This extension is oriented to ontology-driven data integration. In our architecture ontologies are not managed by an extemal component or service, but are integrated in the mediation layer. This approach implies rethinking the mediator design, but at the same time provides advantages from a database perspective. Some of these advantages include the application of optimization and evaluation techniques that use and combine information from all abstraction levels (physical schema, logical schema and semantic information defined by ontology). 1. Introduction Although the Web is probably the richest information repository in human history, users cannot specify what they want from it. Two major problems that arise in current search engines (Heflin, 2001) are: a) polysemy, when the same word is used with different meanings; b) synonymy, when two different words have the same meaning. Polysemy causes irrelevant information retrieval. On the other hand, synonymy produces lost of useful documents. The lack of a capability to understand the context of the words and the relationships among required terms, explains many of the lost and false results produced by search engines. The Semantic Web will bring structure to the meaningful content of Web pages, giving semantic relationships among terms and possibly avoiding the previous problems. Various proposals have appeared for meta-data representation and communication standards, and other services and tools that may eventually merge into the global Semantic Web (Berners-lee, 2001). Hopefully, in the next few years we will see the universal adoption of open standards for representation and sharing of meta-information. In this environment, software agents roaming from page to page can readily carry out sophisticated tasks for users (Berners-Lee, 2001). In this context, ontologies can be seen as metadata that represent semantic of data; providing a knowledge domain standard vocabulary, like DTDs and XML Schema do. If its pages were so structured, the Web could be seen as a heterogeneous collection of autonomous databases. This suggests that techniques developed in the Database area could be useful. Database research mainly deals with efficient storage and retrieval and with powerful query languages.

Source

Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas

0.0026095328 = product of:
  0.036533456 = sum of:
    0.036533456 = product of:
      0.054800183 = sum of:
        0.027523888 = weight(_text_:29 in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027523888 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
        0.027276294 = weight(_text_:22 in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027276294 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1953, 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=1953)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

29. 5.2015 19:09:22

0.0025225044 = product of:
  0.03531506 = sum of:
    0.03531506 = weight(_text_:representation in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03531506 = score(doc=3589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 3589, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3589)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Reports results of a study of 4 WWW search engines: AltaVista; Lycos; Excite and WebCrawler to collect data on Web objects on polymer chemistry. 1.037 Web objects were examined for data in 4 categories: document information; use of meta fields; use of images and use of chemical names. Issues raised included: whether to provide metadata elements for parts of entities or whole entities only, the use of metasyntax, problems in representation of special types of objects, and whether links should be considered when encoding metadata. Use of metafields was not widespread in the sample and knowledge of metafields in HTML varied greatly among Web object creators. The study formed part of a metadata project funded by the OCLC Library and Information Science Research Grant Program

0.00237824 = product of:
  0.03329536 = sum of:
    0.03329536 = weight(_text_:representation in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03329536 = score(doc=3965,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.28756213 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This paper describes recent initiatives to make standard library metadata models and structures available to the Semantic Web, including IFLA standards such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), and International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) along with the infrastructure that supports them. The FRBR Review Group is currently developing representations of FRAD and the entityrelationship model of FRBR in resource description framework (RDF) applications, using a combination of RDF, RDF Schema (RDFS), Simple Knowledge Organisation System (SKOS) and Web Ontology Language (OWL), cross-relating both models where appropriate. The ISBD/XML Task Group is investigating the representation of ISBD in RDF. The IFLA Namespaces project is developing an administrative and technical infrastructure to support such initiatives and encourage uptake of standards by other agencies. The paper describes similar initiatives with related external standards such as RDA - resource description and access, REICAT (the new Italian cataloguing rules) and CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM). The DCMI RDA Task Group is working with the Joint Steering Committee for RDA to develop Semantic Web representations of RDA structural elements, which are aligned with FRBR and FRAD, and controlled metadata content vocabularies. REICAT is also based on FRBR, and an object-oriented version of FRBR has been integrated with CRM, which itself has an RDF representation. CRM was initially based on the metadata needs of the museum community, and is now seeking extension to the archives community with the eventual aim of developing a model common to the main cultural information domains of archives, libraries and museums. The Vocabulary Mapping Framework (VMF) project has developed a Semantic Web tool to automatically generate mappings between metadata models from the information communities, including publishers. The tool is based on several standards, including CRM, FRAD, FRBR, MARC21 and RDA.

0.00237824 = product of:
  0.03329536 = sum of:
    0.03329536 = weight(_text_:representation in 1076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03329536 = score(doc=1076,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.28756213 = fieldWeight in 1076, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1076)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Content

FULL PAPERS Provenance and Annotations for Linked Data - Kai Eckert How Portable Are the Metadata Standards for Scientific Data? A Proposal for a Metadata Infrastructure - Jian Qin, Kai Li Lessons Learned in Implementing the Extended Date/Time Format in a Large Digital Library - Hannah Tarver, Mark Phillips Towards the Representation of Chinese Traditional Music: A State of the Art Review of Music Metadata Standards - Mi Tian, György Fazekas, Dawn Black, Mark Sandler Maps and Gaps: Strategies for Vocabulary Design and Development - Diane Ileana Hillmann, Gordon Dunsire, Jon Phipps A Method for the Development of Dublin Core Application Profiles (Me4DCAP V0.1): Aescription - Mariana Curado Malta, Ana Alice Baptista Find and Combine Vocabularies to Design Metadata Application Profiles using Schema Registries and LOD Resources - Tsunagu Honma, Mitsuharu Nagamori, Shigeo Sugimoto Achieving Interoperability between the CARARE Schema for Monuments and Sites and the Europeana Data Model - Antoine Isaac, Valentine Charles, Kate Fernie, Costis Dallas, Dimitris Gavrilis, Stavros Angelis With a Focused Intent: Evolution of DCMI as a Research Community - Jihee Beak, Richard P. Smiraglia Metadata Capital in a Data Repository - Jane Greenberg, Shea Swauger, Elena Feinstein DC Metadata is Alive and Well - A New Standard for Education - Liddy Nevile Representation of the UNIMARC Bibliographic Data Format in Resource Description Framework - Gordon Dunsire, Mirna Willer, Predrag Perozic

0.002283341 = product of:
  0.031966772 = sum of:
    0.031966772 = product of:
      0.047950156 = sum of:
        0.024083402 = weight(_text_:29 in 2673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024083402 = score(doc=2673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 2673, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2673)
        0.023866756 = weight(_text_:22 in 2673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023866756 = score(doc=2673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2673, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2673)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06

Source

Computer networks and ISDN systems. 29(1997) no.8, S.1147-1156