Search (135 results, page 1 of 7)

0.1277046 = product of:
  0.1915569 = sum of:
    0.063876994 = weight(_text_:resources in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.063876994 = score(doc=4748,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.34221917 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
    0.12767991 = sum of:
      0.08611246 = weight(_text_:management in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08611246 = score(doc=4748,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051133685 = queryNorm
          0.49963182 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
      0.04156745 = weight(_text_:22 in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04156745 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051133685 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4748, 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=4748)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Metadata and information technology staff in libraries that are building digital collections typically extract and manipulate MARC metadata sets to provide access to digital content via non-MARC schemes. Metadata processing in these libraries involves defining the relationships between metadata schemes, moving metadata between schemes, and coordinating the intellectual activity and physical resources required to create and manipulate metadata. Actively managing the non-MARC metadata resources used to build digital collections is something most of these libraries have only begun to do. This article proposes strategies for managing MARC metadata repurposing efforts as the first step in a coordinated approach to library metadata management. Guided by lessons learned from Cornell University library mapping and transformation activities, the authors apply the literature of data resource management to library metadata management and propose a model for managing MARC metadata repurposing processes through the implementation of a metadata management design.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.144-152

0.07525398 = product of:
  0.11288096 = sum of:
    0.08516933 = weight(_text_:resources in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08516933 = score(doc=126,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.45629224 = fieldWeight in 126, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=126)
    0.027711634 = product of:
      0.055423267 = sum of:
        0.055423267 = weight(_text_:22 in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055423267 = score(doc=126,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 126, 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=126)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

As libraries attempt to incorporate increasing amounts of electronic resources into their catalogs, utilizing a growing variety of metadata standards, library and information science programs are grappling with how to educate catalogers to meet these challenges. In this paper, an employer considers the characteristics and skills that catalogers will need and how they might acquire them.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 49(2005) no.1, S.14-18

0.072163075 = product of:
  0.10824461 = sum of:
    0.092198506 = weight(_text_:resources in 2093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.092198506 = score(doc=2093,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.49395084 = fieldWeight in 2093, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2093)
    0.016046109 = product of:
      0.032092217 = sum of:
        0.032092217 = weight(_text_:management in 2093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032092217 = score(doc=2093,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 2093, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2093)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper deals with the problem of modeling Web information resources using expert knowledge and personalized user information for improved Web searching capabilities. We propose a "Web information space" model, which is composed of Web-based information resources (HTML/XML [Hypertext Markup Language/Extensible Markup Language] documents an the Web), expert advice repositories (domain-expert-specified metadata for information resources), and personalized information about users (captured as user profiles that indicate users' preferences about experts as well as users' knowledge about topics). Expert advice, the heart of the Web information space model, is specified using topics and relationships among topics (called metalinks), along the lines of the recently proposed topic maps. Topics and metalinks constitute metadata that describe the contents of the underlying HTML/XML Web resources. The metadata specification process is semiautomated, and it exploits XML DTDs (Document Type Definition) to allow domain-expert guided mapping of DTD elements to topics and metalinks. The expert advice is stored in an object-relational database management system (DBMS). To demonstrate the practicality and usability of the proposed Web information space model, we created a prototype expert advice repository of more than one million topics/metalinks for DBLP (Database and Logic Programming) Bibliography data set. We also present a query interface that provides sophisticated querying fa cilities for DBLP Bibliography resources using the expert advice repository.

0.06584723 = product of:
  0.09877084 = sum of:
    0.074523166 = weight(_text_:resources in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074523166 = score(doc=2843,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.39925572 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
    0.02424768 = product of:
      0.04849536 = sum of:
        0.04849536 = weight(_text_:22 in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04849536 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The MIT libraries were called upon to recommend a metadata scheme for the resources contained in MIT's OpenCourseWare (OCW) project. The resources in OCW needed descriptive, structural, and technical metadata. The SCORM standard, which uses IEEE Learning Object Metadata for its descriptive standard, was selected for its focus on educational objects. However, it was clear that the Libraries would need to recommend how the standard would be applied and adapted to accommodate needs that were not addressed in the standard's specifications. The newly formed MIT Libraries Metadata Unit adapted established practices from AACR2 and MARC traditions when facing situations in which there were no precedents to follow.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.138-143

0.058623634 = product of:
  0.08793545 = sum of:
    0.06022381 = weight(_text_:resources in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06022381 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.32264733 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
    0.027711634 = product of:
      0.055423267 = sum of:
        0.055423267 = weight(_text_:22 in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055423267 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 81, 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=81)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper provides an introduction to the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS), a MARC21 compatible XML schema for descriptive metadata. It explains the requirements that the schema targets and the special features that differentiate it from MARC, such as user-oriented tags, regrouped data elements, linking, recursion, and accommodations for electronic resources.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.82-88

0.058623634 = product of:
  0.08793545 = sum of:
    0.06022381 = weight(_text_:resources in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06022381 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.32264733 = fieldWeight in 2686, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2686)
    0.027711634 = product of:
      0.055423267 = sum of:
        0.055423267 = weight(_text_:22 in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055423267 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2686, 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=2686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

10. 9.2004 10:22:40

Source

http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/UnderstandingMetadata.pdf

0.05644048 = product of:
  0.08466072 = sum of:
    0.063876994 = weight(_text_:resources in 2636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.063876994 = score(doc=2636,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.34221917 = fieldWeight in 2636, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2636)
    0.020783724 = product of:
      0.04156745 = sum of:
        0.04156745 = weight(_text_:22 in 2636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04156745 = score(doc=2636,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2636, 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=2636)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper describes metadata development of an application profile for the National Science Digital Library (NSDL) Achievement Standards Network (ASN) in the United States. The ASN is a national repository of machine-readable achievement standards modeled in RDF that shape teaching and learning in the various states. We describe the nature of the ASN metadata and the various uses to which that metadata is applied including the alignment of the standards of one state to those of another and the correlation of those standards to educational resources in support of resource discovery and retrieval.

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

0.05644048 = product of:
  0.08466072 = sum of:
    0.063876994 = weight(_text_:resources in 2643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.063876994 = score(doc=2643,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.34221917 = fieldWeight in 2643, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2643)
    0.020783724 = product of:
      0.04156745 = sum of:
        0.04156745 = weight(_text_:22 in 2643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04156745 = score(doc=2643,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2643, 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=2643)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Metadata quality of digital resources in a repository is an issue directly associated with the repository's efficiency and value. In this paper, the subject of metadata quality is approached by introducing a new conceptual framework that defines it in terms of its fundamental components. Additionally, a method for assessing these components by exploiting structural and semantic relations among the resources is presented. These relations can be used to generate implied logic rules, which include, impose or prohibit certain values in the fields of a metadata record. The use of such rules can serve as a tool for conducting quality control in the records, in order to diagnose deficiencies and errors.

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

0.055009305 = product of:
  0.08251396 = sum of:
    0.06519419 = weight(_text_:resources in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06519419 = score(doc=138,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.349276 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
    0.017319772 = product of:
      0.034639545 = sum of:
        0.034639545 = weight(_text_:22 in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034639545 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 138, 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=138)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper presents findings of a survey an the state of cataloging and metadata education. in ALA-accredited library and information science progranis in North America. The survey was conducted in response to Action Item 5.1 of the "Bibliographic Control of Web Resources: A Library of Congress Action Plan," which focuses an providing metadata education to new LIS professionals. The study found LIS programs increased their reliance an introductory courses to cover cataloging and metadata, but fewer programs than before had a cataloging course requirement. The knowledge of cataloging delivered in introductory courses was basic, and the coverage of metadata was limited to an overview. Cataloging courses showed similarity in coverage and practice and focused an print mater!als. Few cataloging educators provided exercises in metadata record creation using non-AACR standards. Advanced cataloging courses provided in-depth coverage of subject cataloging and the cataloging of nonbook resources, but offered very limited coverage of metadata. Few programs offered full courses an metadata, and even fewer offered advanced metadata courses. Metadata topics were well integrated into LIS curricula, but coverage of metadata courses varied from program to program, depending an the interests of instructors. Educators were forward-looking and agreed an the inclusion of specific knowledge and skills in metadata instruction. A series of actions were proposed to assist educators in providing students with competencies in cataloging and metadata.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 48(2004) no.1, S.59-68

0.05181646 = product of:
  0.07772469 = sum of:
    0.053230833 = weight(_text_:resources in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053230833 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28518265 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
    0.024493856 = product of:
      0.048987713 = sum of:
        0.048987713 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048987713 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Folksonomy is the result of describing Web resources with tags created by Web users. Although it has become a popular application for the description of resources, in general terms Folksonomies are not being conveniently integrated in metadata. However, if the appropriate metadata elements are identified, then further work may be conducted to automatically assign tags to these elements (RDF properties) and use them in Semantic Web applications. This article presents research carried out to continue the project Kinds of Tags, which intends to identify elements required for metadata originating from folksonomies and to propose an application profile for DC Social Tagging. The work provides information that may be used by software applications to assign tags to metadata elements and, therefore, means for tags to be conveniently gathered by metadata interoperability tools. Despite the unquestionably high value of DC and the significance of the already existing properties in DC Terms, the pilot study show revealed a significant number of tags for which no corresponding properties yet existed. A need for new properties, such as Action, Depth, Rate, and Utility was determined. Those potential new properties will have to be validated in a later stage by the DC Social Tagging Community.

Pages

S.14-22

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

0.05129568 = product of:
  0.07694352 = sum of:
    0.052695833 = weight(_text_:resources in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052695833 = score(doc=4866,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28231642 = fieldWeight in 4866, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4866)
    0.02424768 = product of:
      0.04849536 = sum of:
        0.04849536 = weight(_text_:22 in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04849536 = score(doc=4866,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.05129568 = product of:
  0.07694352 = sum of:
    0.052695833 = weight(_text_:resources in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052695833 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28231642 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
    0.02424768 = product of:
      0.04849536 = sum of:
        0.04849536 = weight(_text_:22 in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04849536 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 180, 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=180)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 44(2000) no.1, S.33-43

0.05129568 = product of:
  0.07694352 = sum of:
    0.052695833 = weight(_text_:resources in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052695833 = score(doc=637,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28231642 = fieldWeight in 637, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=637)
    0.02424768 = product of:
      0.04849536 = sum of:
        0.04849536 = weight(_text_:22 in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04849536 = score(doc=637,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 637, 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=637)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In an interview, Diane I. Hillmann, an expert in metadata for digital libraries and currently co-principal investigator for the National Science Digital Library Registry based at Cornell University, discusses her education and career, and provides overviews and insights on metadata initiatives, including standards and models such as the widely adopted Dublin Core schema. She shares her professional interests from the early part of her career with communications, cataloging, and database production services; highlights key issues; and provides ideas and resources for managing changes in metadata standards and digital projects.

Date

2.12.2007 19:35:22

0.050106924 = product of:
  0.075160384 = sum of:
    0.052695833 = weight(_text_:resources in 962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052695833 = score(doc=962,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28231642 = fieldWeight in 962, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=962)
    0.022464553 = product of:
      0.044929106 = sum of:
        0.044929106 = weight(_text_:management in 962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044929106 = score(doc=962,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 962, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=962)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Timothy is the Mathematics Librarian and Associate Professor of Library Administration at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL. He describes his experience with encoding Qualified Dublin Core (DCQ) metadata in RDF/XML and concludes that although there are still some issues that need to be resolved, generally speaking expressing DCQ metadata in RDF/XML is still worthwhile. However, initial investment in some cases may not be warranted. The draft DCMI guidelines for expressing DCQ metadata in RDF/XML are adequate for generating DCQ/RDF metadata instances. The current need is to develop applications that will use these metadata instances to enhance resources management and discovery.

0.04980295 = product of:
  0.07470442 = sum of:
    0.065627374 = weight(_text_:resources in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.065627374 = score(doc=339,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.35159677 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
    0.009077051 = product of:
      0.018154101 = sum of:
        0.018154101 = weight(_text_:management in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018154101 = score(doc=339,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.10533164 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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
Electronic information resources / Management

Subject

Cataloging of electronic information resources
Cataloging of integrating resources
Electronic information resources / Management

0.04870677 = product of:
  0.073060155 = sum of:
    0.026347917 = weight(_text_:resources in 2668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026347917 = score(doc=2668,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.14115821 = fieldWeight in 2668, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2668)
    0.046712235 = sum of:
      0.022464553 = weight(_text_:management in 2668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022464553 = score(doc=2668,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051133685 = queryNorm
          0.13034125 = fieldWeight in 2668, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2668)
      0.02424768 = weight(_text_:22 in 2668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02424768 = score(doc=2668,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051133685 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

Content

Carol Jean Godby, Devon Smith, Eric Childress: Encoding Application Profiles in a Computational Model of the Crosswalk. - Maria Elisabete Catarino, Ana Alice Baptista: Relating Folksonomies with Dublin Core. - Ed Summers, Antoine Isaac, Clay Redding, Dan Krech: LCSH, SKOS and Linked Data. - Xia Lin, Jiexun Li, Xiaohua Zhou: Theme Creation for Digital Collections. - Boris Lauser, Gudrun Johannsen, Caterina Caracciolo, Willem Robert van Hage, Johannes Keizer, Philipp Mayr: Comparing Human and Automatic Thesaurus Mapping Approaches in the Agricultural Domain. - P. Bryan Heidorn, Qin Wei: Automatic Metadata Extraction From Museum Specimen Labels. - Stuart Allen Sutton, Diny Golder: Achievement Standards Network (ASN): An Application Profile for Mapping K-12 Educational Resources to Achievement Standards. - Allen H. Renear, Karen M. Wickett, Richard J. Urban, David Dubin, Sarah L. Shreeves: Collection/Item Metadata Relationships. - Seth van Hooland, Yves Bontemps, Seth Kaufman: Answering the Call for more Accountability: Applying Data Profiling to Museum Metadata. - Thomas Margaritopoulos, Merkourios Margaritopoulos, Ioannis Mavridis, Athanasios Manitsaris: A Conceptual Framework for Metadata Quality Assessment. - Miao Chen, Xiaozhong Liu, Jian Qin: Semantic Relation Extraction from Socially-Generated Tags: A Methodology for Metadata Generation. - Hak Lae Kim, Simon Scerri, John G. Breslin, Stefan Decker, Hong Gee Kim: The State of the Art in Tag Ontologies: A Semantic Model for Tagging and Folksonomies. - Martin Malmsten: Making a Library Catalogue Part of the Semantic Web. - Philipp Mayr, Vivien Petras: Building a Terminology Network for Search: The KoMoHe Project. - Michael Panzer: Cool URIs for the DDC: Towards Web-scale Accessibility of a Large Classification System. - Barbara Levergood, Stefan Farrenkopf, Elisabeth Frasnelli: The Specification of the Language of the Field and Interoperability: Cross-language Access to Catalogues and Online Libraries (CACAO)

0.048266005 = product of:
  0.072399005 = sum of:
    0.045167856 = weight(_text_:resources in 4453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045167856 = score(doc=4453,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 4453, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4453)
    0.027231153 = product of:
      0.054462306 = sum of:
        0.054462306 = weight(_text_:management in 4453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054462306 = score(doc=4453,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.31599492 = fieldWeight in 4453, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4453)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Management of rights in electronic resources on the Internet is a complex issue. this can be considered almost universal knowledge, as paraphrases of this statement can be found in many discussions on this subject. This being the case, it is not surprising that a definition, operational solution to the problem has yet to be found. In one of the world's leading metadata initiatives, the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, discussions on this topic over several years have failed to reach a conclusion. Some people think the issue is simply too complex to handle, others that the provision of simple shortcuts to more detailed information should be sufficient. It could be argued that a solution to the issue is in fact out of scope for the Dublin Core element set, in so far as it aims only to establish a core set of descriptive metadata for resource discovery

0.048266005 = product of:
  0.072399005 = sum of:
    0.045167856 = weight(_text_:resources in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045167856 = score(doc=1323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
    0.027231153 = product of:
      0.054462306 = sum of:
        0.054462306 = weight(_text_:management in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054462306 = score(doc=1323,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.31599492 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Maintaining a library of digital objects of necessaryy requires maintaining metadata about those objects. The metadata necessary for successful management and use of digital objeets is both more extensive than and different from the metadata used for managing collections of printed works and other physical materials. While a library may record descriptive metadata regarding a book in its collection, the book will not dissolve into a series of unconnected pages if the library fails to record structural metadata regarding the book's organization, nor will scholars be unable to evaluate the book's worth if the library fails to note that the book was produced using a Ryobi offset press. The Same cannot be said for a digital version of the saure book. Without structural metadata, the page image or text files comprising the digital work are of little use, and without technical metadata regarding the digitization process, scholars may be unsure of how accurate a reflection of the original the digital version provides. For internal management purposes, a library must have access to appropriate technical metadata in order to periodically refresh and migrate the data, ensuring the durability of valuable resources.

0.04396772 = product of:
  0.06595158 = sum of:
    0.045167856 = weight(_text_:resources in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045167856 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
    0.020783724 = product of:
      0.04156745 = sum of:
        0.04156745 = weight(_text_:22 in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04156745 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2556, 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=2556)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

First generation scholarly research on the Web lacked a firm system of authority control. Second generation Web research is beginning to model subject access with library science principles of bibliographic control and cataloguing. Harnessing the Web and organising the intellectual content with standards and controlled vocabulary provides precise search and retrieval capability, increasing relevance and efficient use of technology. Dublin Core metadata standards permit a full evaluation and cataloguing of Web resources appropriate to highly specific research needs and discovery. Current research points to a type of structure based on a system of faceted classification. This system allows the semantic and syntactic relationships to be defined. Controlled vocabulary, such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings, can be assigned, not in a hierarchical structure, but rather as descriptive facets of relating concepts. Web design features such as this are adding value to discovery and filtering out data that lack authority. The system design allows for scalability and extensibility, two technical features that are integral to future development of the digital library and resource discovery.

Date

30.12.2008 18:22:46

0.042584665 = product of:
  0.12775399 = sum of:
    0.12775399 = weight(_text_:resources in 347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12775399 = score(doc=347,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.68443835 = fieldWeight in 347, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=347)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Theme day on use of metadata in Internet resources