Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Pharo, N."
  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  1. Tallerås, K.; Massey, D.; Husevåg, A.-S.R.; Preminger, M.; Pharo, N.: Evaluating (linked) metadata transformations across cultural heritage domains (2014) 0.00
    0.0028993662 = product of:
      0.008698098 = sum of:
        0.008698098 = product of:
          0.017396197 = sum of:
            0.017396197 = weight(_text_:of in 1588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.017396197 = score(doc=1588,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043811057 = queryNorm
                0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 1588, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1588)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    This paper describes an approach to the evaluation of different aspects in the transformation of existing metadata into Linked data-compliant knowledge bases. At Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Science, in the TORCH project, we are working on three different experimental case studies on extraction and mapping of broadcasting data and the interlinking of these with transformed library data. The case studies are investigating problems of heterogeneity and ambiguity in and between the domains, as well as problems arising in the interlinking process. The proposed approach makes it possible to collaborate on evaluation across different experiments, and to rationalize and streamline the process.
  2. Tallerås, C.; Dahl, J.H.B.; Pharo, N.: User conceptualizations of derivative relationships in the bibliographic universe (2018) 0.00
    0.0027899165 = product of:
      0.008369749 = sum of:
        0.008369749 = product of:
          0.016739499 = sum of:
            0.016739499 = weight(_text_:of in 4247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.016739499 = score(doc=4247,freq=16.0), product of:
                0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043811057 = queryNorm
                0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 4247, product of:
                  4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                    16.0 = termFreq=16.0
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4247)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose Considerable effort is devoted to developing new models for organizing bibliographic metadata. However, such models have been repeatedly criticized for their lack of proper user testing. The purpose of this paper is to present a study on how non-experts in bibliographic systems map the bibliographic universe and, in particular, how they conceptualize relationships between independent but strongly related entities. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on an open concept-mapping task performed to externalize the conceptualizations of 98 novice students. The conceptualizations of the resulting concept maps are identified and analyzed statistically. Findings The study shows that the participants' conceptualizations have great variety, differing in detail and granularity. These conceptualizations can be categorized into two main groups according to derivative relationships: those that apply a single-entity model directly relating document entities and those (the majority) that apply a multi-entity model relating documents through a high-level collocating node. These high-level nodes seem to be most adequately interpreted either as superwork devices collocating documents belonging to the same bibliographic family or as devices collocating documents belonging to a shared fictional world. Originality/value The findings can guide the work to develop bibliographic standards. Based on the diversity of the conceptualizations, the findings also emphasize the need for more user testing of both conceptual models and the bibliographic end-user systems implementing those models.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 74(2018) no.4, S.894-916