Search (102 results, page 1 of 6)

0.09148935 = product of:
  0.22872338 = sum of:
    0.108769074 = weight(_text_:policy in 1561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.108769074 = score(doc=1561,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.47392356 = fieldWeight in 1561, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1561)
    0.1199543 = weight(_text_:great in 1561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1199543 = score(doc=1561,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24101958 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.49769527 = fieldWeight in 1561, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1561)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

The PICS, an initiative of W3C, is a technology that supports the association of descriptive labels with Web resources. By providing a single common transport syntax for metadata, PICS will support the growth of metadata systems (including library cataloguing) that are interoperable and widely supported in Web information systems. Within the PICS framework, a great diversity of resource description models can be implemented, from simple rating schemes to complex data content standards

0.052786585 = product of:
  0.13196646 = sum of:
    0.108769074 = weight(_text_:policy in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.108769074 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.47392356 = fieldWeight in 4869, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4869)
    0.023197377 = product of:
      0.046394754 = sum of:
        0.046394754 = weight(_text_:22 in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046394754 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4869, 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=4869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article gives an overview of the design and organisation of DutchESS, a Dutch information subject gateway created as a national collaborative effort of the National Library and a number of academic libraries. The combined centralised and distributed model of DutchESS is discussed, as well as its selection policy, its metadata format, classification scheme and retrieval options. Also some options for future collaboration on an international level are explored

Date

22. 6.2002 19:39:23

0.046188258 = product of:
  0.11547064 = sum of:
    0.095172934 = weight(_text_:policy in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.095172934 = score(doc=4866,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.4146831 = fieldWeight in 4866, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4866)
    0.020297704 = product of:
      0.04059541 = sum of:
        0.04059541 = weight(_text_:22 in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04059541 = score(doc=4866,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4866, 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=4866)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Information subject gateways provide targeted discovery services for their users, giving access to Web resources selected according to quality and subject coverage criteria. Information gateways recognise that they must collaborate on a wide range of issues relating to content to ensure continued success. This report is informed by discussion of content activities at the 1999 Imesh Workshop. The author considers the implications for subject based gateways of co-operation regarding coverage policy, creation of metadata, and provision of searching and browsing across services. Other possibilities for co-operation include working more closely with information providers, and diclosure of information in joint metadata registries

Date

22. 6.2002 19:38:54

0.046188258 = product of:
  0.11547064 = sum of:
    0.095172934 = weight(_text_:policy in 5165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.095172934 = score(doc=5165,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.4146831 = fieldWeight in 5165, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5165)
    0.020297704 = product of:
      0.04059541 = sum of:
        0.04059541 = weight(_text_:22 in 5165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04059541 = score(doc=5165,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5165, 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=5165)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

9. 9.2000 17:22:23

Source

Internet research. Electronic networking applications and policy. 8(1998) no.5, S.377-386

0.026918976 = product of:
  0.13459487 = sum of:
    0.13459487 = weight(_text_:policy in 2983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13459487 = score(doc=2983,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.5864505 = fieldWeight in 2983, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2983)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The Alliance Digital Repository (ADR) is a consortial digital repository service developed by Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries (Alliance). This paper details how a standard descriptive metadata policy for repository records developed, and how that policy is currently being implemented. All digital objects in the ADR are required to have MODS and OAI-Dublin Core metadata that conform to certain minimum requirements. To help members meet the requirements, Alliance staff and the ADR Metadata Working Group, using tools available in the Fedora/Fez repository environment, have developed a customized set of core ADR material type templates in XSD form.

0.026393292 = product of:
  0.06598323 = sum of:
    0.054384537 = weight(_text_:policy in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054384537 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.23696178 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
    0.011598689 = product of:
      0.023197377 = sum of:
        0.023197377 = weight(_text_:22 in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023197377 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The proliferation of discipline-specific metadata schemes contributes to artificial barriers that can impede interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. The authors considered this problem by examining the domains, objectives, and architectures of nine metadata schemes used to document scientific data in the physical, life, and social sciences. They used a mixed-methods content analysis and Greenberg's () metadata objectives, principles, domains, and architectural layout (MODAL) framework, and derived 22 metadata-related goals from textual content describing each metadata scheme. Relationships are identified between the domains (e.g., scientific discipline and type of data) and the categories of scheme objectives. For each strong correlation (>0.6), a Fisher's exact test for nonparametric data was used to determine significance (p < .05). Significant relationships were found between the domains and objectives of the schemes. Schemes describing observational data are more likely to have "scheme harmonization" (compatibility and interoperability with related schemes) as an objective; schemes with the objective "abstraction" (a conceptual model exists separate from the technical implementation) also have the objective "sufficiency" (the scheme defines a minimal amount of information to meet the needs of the community); and schemes with the objective "data publication" do not have the objective "element refinement." The analysis indicates that many metadata-driven goals expressed by communities are independent of scientific discipline or the type of data, although they are constrained by historical community practices and workflows as well as the technological environment at the time of scheme creation. The analysis reveals 11 fundamental metadata goals for metadata documenting scientific data in support of sharing research data across disciplines and domains. The authors report these results and highlight the need for more metadata-related research, particularly in the context of recent funding agency policy changes.

0.021753816 = product of:
  0.108769074 = sum of:
    0.108769074 = weight(_text_:policy in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.108769074 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.47392356 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Examines some important policy level issues which impact on the implementation of metadata systems at the State Library of New South Wales. The issues present challenges and opportunities for the establishment of a new 'digital' library identity and for the forging of new 'digital' relationships with client groups and with other cultural, educational, government and commercial institutions

0.021753816 = product of:
  0.108769074 = sum of:
    0.108769074 = weight(_text_:policy in 5221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.108769074 = score(doc=5221,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.47392356 = fieldWeight in 5221, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5221)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Internet research. Electronic networking applications and policy. 8(1998) no.4, S.347-358

0.021753816 = product of:
  0.108769074 = sum of:
    0.108769074 = weight(_text_:policy in 363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.108769074 = score(doc=363,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.47392356 = fieldWeight in 363, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=363)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Im Folgenden soll der Frage nachgegangen werden, inwiefern Bibliotheken den Qualitätsanspruch an inhaltserschließende Informationen von Ressourcen durch die Formulierung und Veröffentlichung einer bibliotheksspezifischen, übergeordneten Metadaten-Richtlinie bzw. -Policy - auch im Sinne einer Transparenzoffensive - und deren Anwendung beeinflussen können.

0.021205125 = product of:
  0.10602563 = sum of:
    0.10602563 = weight(_text_:great in 2964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10602563 = score(doc=2964,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24101958 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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].

0.020992003 = product of:
  0.10496002 = sum of:
    0.10496002 = weight(_text_:great in 967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10496002 = score(doc=967,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24101958 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.43548337 = fieldWeight in 967, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=967)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Internet resources have brought great excitement but also grave concerns to the library world, especially to the cataloging community. In spite of the various problematic aspects presented by Internet resources (poorly organized, lack of stability, variable quality), catalogers have decided that they are worth cataloging, in particular those meeting library selection criteria. This paper tries to trace the decade-long history of the library comrnunity's efforts in providing an effective way to catalog Internet resources. Basically, its olbjective is to answer the following questions: Why catalog? What to catalog? and, How to catalog. Some issues of cataloging electronic journals and developments of the Dublin Core Metadata system are also discussed.

0.019227838 = product of:
  0.096139185 = sum of:
    0.096139185 = weight(_text_:policy in 1042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.096139185 = score(doc=1042,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.41889322 = fieldWeight in 1042, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1042)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Natural language processing techniques can be used to analyze the linguistic content of a document to extract missing pieces of metadata. However, accurate metadata extraction may not depend solely on the linguistics, but also on structural problems such as extremely large documents, unordered multi-file documents, and inconsistency in manually labeled metadata. In this work, we start from two standard machine learning solutions to extract pieces of metadata from Environmental Impact Statements, environmental policy documents that are regularly produced under the US National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. We present a series of experiments where we evaluate how these standard approaches are affected by different issues derived from real-world data. We find that metadata extraction can be strongly influenced by nonlinguistic factors such as document length and volume ordering and that the standard machine learning solutions often do not scale well to long documents. We demonstrate how such solutions can be better adapted to these scenarios, and conclude with suggestions for other NLP practitioners cataloging large document collections.

0.017993147 = product of:
  0.08996573 = sum of:
    0.08996573 = weight(_text_:great in 4054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08996573 = score(doc=4054,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24101958 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.017993147 = product of:
  0.08996573 = sum of:
    0.08996573 = weight(_text_:great in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08996573 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24101958 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.37327147 = fieldWeight in 5666, 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=5666)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper discusses the concept of "metadata" in the scope of the "digital library," two terms recently used in a great diversity of perspectives. It is not the intent to promote privilege of any particular view, but rather to help provide a better understanding of these multiple perspectives. The paper starts with a discussion of the concept of digital library, followed by an analysis of the concept of metadata. It continues with a discussion about the relationship of this concept with technology, services, and scenarios of application. The concluding remarks stress the three main arguments assumed for the relevance of the concept of metadata: the growing number of heterogeneous genres of information resources, the new emerging scenarios for interoperability, and issues related to the cost and complexity of current technology.

0.016315361 = product of:
  0.0815768 = sum of:
    0.0815768 = weight(_text_:policy in 4454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0815768 = score(doc=4454,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 4454, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4454)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Dublin Core is developed in an open consensus building environment and has also succeeded in many countries and in many domains. The idea of Dublin Core was to establish a de facto standard for metadata for discovery. There is a natural development from de facto standards to formal standards. A very important detail of formal standardisation is the stability and the credibility of an official standard. That was the background for the metadata policy of The Danish National Library Authority, agreed upon in Dec 1997. We decided to work for a formal standardisation of Dublin Core. there was - and is - a need for standardised method of describing Internet resources. And at that time Dublin core seemed to be the best bid for a metadata schema. It was not very widely used in practice, but Dublin Core was what people were talking about

0.016315361 = product of:
  0.0815768 = sum of:
    0.0815768 = weight(_text_:policy in 2988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0815768 = score(doc=2988,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 2988, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2988)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.016315361 = product of:
  0.0815768 = sum of:
    0.0815768 = weight(_text_:policy in 4096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0815768 = score(doc=4096,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 4096, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4096)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This new and updated second edition of a classic text provides a thought-provoking introduction to metadata for all library and information students and professionals. Metadata for Information Management and Retrieval has been fully revised by David Haynes to bring it up to date with new technology and standards. The new edition, containing new chapters on Metadata Standards and Encoding Schemes, assesses the current theory and practice of metadata and examines key developments in terms of both policy and technology. Coverage includes: an introduction to the concept of metadata a description of the main components of metadata systems and standards an overview of the scope of metadata and its applications a description of typical information retrieval issues in corporate and research environments a demonstration of ways in which metadata is used to improve retrieval a look at ways in which metadata is used to manage information consideration of the role of metadata in information governance.

0.014994288 = product of:
  0.07497144 = sum of:
    0.07497144 = weight(_text_:great in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07497144 = score(doc=3707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24101958 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.014994288 = product of:
  0.07497144 = sum of:
    0.07497144 = weight(_text_:great in 4247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07497144 = score(doc=4247,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24101958 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.01199543 = product of:
  0.05997715 = sum of:
    0.05997715 = weight(_text_:great in 1076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05997715 = score(doc=1076,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24101958 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 1076, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1076)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The collocated conferences for DC-2013 and iPRES-2013 in Lisbon attracted 392 participants from over 37 countries. In addition to the Tuesday through Thursday conference days comprised of peer-reviewed paper and special sessions, 223 participants attended pre-conference tutorials and 246 participated in post-conference workshops for the collocated events. The peer-reviewed papers and presentations are available on the conference website Presentation page (URLs above). In sum, it was a great conference. In addition to links to PDFs of papers, project reports and posters (and their associated presentations), the published proceedings include presentation PDFs for the following: KEYNOTES Darling, we need to talk - Gildas Illien TUTORIALS -- Ivan Herman: "Introduction to Linked Open Data (LOD)" -- Steven Miller: "Introduction to Ontology Concepts and Terminology" -- Kai Eckert: "Metadata Provenance" -- Daniel Garjio: "The W3C Provenance Ontology" SPECIAL SESSIONS -- "Application Profiles as an Alternative to OWL Ontologies" -- "Long-term Preservation and Governance of RDF Vocabularies (W3C Sponsored)" -- "Data Enrichment and Transformation in the LOD Context: Poor & Popular vs Rich & Lonely--Can't we achieve both?" -- "Why Schema.org?"