Search (31 results, page 1 of 2)

0.019357719 = product of:
  0.058073156 = sum of:
    0.058073156 = sum of:
      0.022458395 = weight(_text_:of in 720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022458395 = score(doc=720,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 720, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=720)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=720,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 720, 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=720)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The flexibility and extensibility of XML have largely contributed to its wide acceptance beyond the traditional realm of SGML. Yet, there is still one more obstacle to be overcome before XML is able to become the evangelized universal data/document format. The obstacle is posed by the limitations of the legacy standard for constraining the contents of an XML document. The traditionally used DTD (document type definition) format does not lend itself to be used in the wide variety of applications XML is capable of handling. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has charged the XML schema working group with the task of developing a schema language to replace DTD. This XML schema language is evolving based on early drafts of XML schema languages. Each one of these early efforts adopted a slightly different approach, but all of them were moving in the same direction.

Date

28. 1.2006 19:01:22

0.018633895 = product of:
  0.055901684 = sum of:
    0.055901684 = sum of:
      0.014351131 = weight(_text_:of in 2538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014351131 = score(doc=2538,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 2538, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2538)
      0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 2538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041550554 = score(doc=2538,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2538, 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=2538)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Structured document interchange formats such as XML and SGML are ubiquitous, however, information retrieval systems supporting structured searching are not. Structured searching can result in increased precision. A search for the author "Smith" in an unstructured corpus of documents specializing in iron-working could have a lower precision than a structured search for "Smith as author" in the same corpus. Analysis of XML retrieval languages identifies additional functionality that must be supported including searching at, and broken across multiple nodes in the document tree. A data structure is developed to support structured document searching. Application of this structure to information retrieval is then demonstrated. Document ranking is examined and adapted specifically for structured searching.

Date

14. 8.2004 10:39:22

0.009892989 = product of:
  0.029678967 = sum of:
    0.029678967 = product of:
      0.059357934 = sum of:
        0.059357934 = weight(_text_:22 in 4950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059357934 = score(doc=4950,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4950, 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=4950)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

30. 3.2003 11:06:22

0.007914391 = product of:
  0.023743173 = sum of:
    0.023743173 = product of:
      0.047486346 = sum of:
        0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 1457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047486346 = score(doc=1457,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1457, 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=1457)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Seit dem 22. Februar 1999 ist das Resource Description Framework (RDF) als W3C-Empfehlung verfügbar. Doch was steckt hinter diesem Standard, der das Zeitalter des Semantischen Webs einläuten soll? Was RDF bedeutet, wozu man es einsetzt, welche Vorteile es gegenüber XML hat und wie man RDF anwendet, soll in diesem Artikel erläutert werden.

0.0069250925 = product of:
  0.020775277 = sum of:
    0.020775277 = product of:
      0.041550554 = sum of:
        0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 1461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041550554 = score(doc=1461,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1461, 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=1461)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

30. 3.2003 10:50:22

0.004175565 = product of:
  0.012526695 = sum of:
    0.012526695 = product of:
      0.02505339 = sum of:
        0.02505339 = weight(_text_:of in 2118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02505339 = score(doc=2118,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 2118, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2118)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The article presents an analysis of the effect of granularity and order in an XML encoded collection of full text journal articles. Two-hundred and eighteen sessions of searchers performing simulated work tasks in the collection have been analysed. The results show that searchers prefer to use smaller sections of the article as their source of information. In interaction sessions during which articles are assessed, however, they are to a large degree evaluated as more important than the articles' sections and subsections.

0.00355646 = product of:
  0.0106693795 = sum of:
    0.0106693795 = product of:
      0.021338759 = sum of:
        0.021338759 = weight(_text_:of in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021338759 = score(doc=1467,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

XML (eXtensible Markup Language) is fast gaining favor as the universal format for data and document exchange -- in effect becoming the lingua franca of the Information Age. Currently, "library information" is at a particular disadvantage on the rapidly evolving World Wide Web. Why? Despite libraries'explorations of web catalogs, scanning projects, digital data repositories, and creation of web pages galore, there remains a digital divide. The core of libraries' data troves are stored in proprietary formats of integrated library systems (ILS) and in the complex and arcane MARC formats -- both restricted chiefly to the province of technical services and systems librarians. Even they are hard-pressed to extract and integrate this wealth of data with resources from outside this rarefied environment. Segregation of library information underlies many difficulties: producing standard bibliographic citations from MARC data, automatically creating new materials lists (including new web resources) on a particular topic, exchanging data with our vendors, and even migrating from one ILS to another. Why do we continue to hobble our potential by embracing these self-imposed limitations? Most ILSs began in libraries, which soon recognized the pitfalls of do-it-yourself solutions. Thus, we wisely anticipated the necessity for standards. However, with the advent of the web, we soon found "our" collections and a flood of new resources appearing in digital format on opposite sides of the divide. If we do not act quickly to integrate library resources with mainstream web resources, we are in grave danger of becoming marginalized

0.0035509837 = product of:
  0.010652951 = sum of:
    0.010652951 = product of:
      0.021305902 = sum of:
        0.021305902 = weight(_text_:of in 1623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021305902 = score(doc=1623,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 1623, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1623)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This specification provides a model and grammar for representing the structure of information resources used to define topics, and the associations (relationships) between topics. Names, resources, and relationships are said to be characteristics of abstract subjects, which are called topics. Topics have their characteristics within scopes: i.e. the limited contexts within which the names and resources are regarded as their name, resource, and relationship characteristics. One or more interrelated documents employing this grammar is called a topic map.TopicMaps.Org is an independent consortium of parties developing the applicability of the topic map paradigm [ISO13250] to the World Wide Web by leveraging the XML family of specifications. This specification describes version 1.0 of XML Topic Maps (XTM) 1.0 [XTM], an abstract model and XML grammar for interchanging Web-based topic maps, written by the members of the TopicMaps.Org Authoring Group. More information on XTM and TopicMaps.Org is available at http://www.topicmaps.org/about.html. All versions of the XTM Specification are permanently licensed to the public, as provided by the Charter of TopicMaps.Org.

0.0035509837 = product of:
  0.010652951 = sum of:
    0.010652951 = product of:
      0.021305902 = sum of:
        0.021305902 = weight(_text_:of in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021305902 = score(doc=718,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

There is a widespread perception that, in terms of web-technology, XML is going to be the 'next big thing'. Given the amount of comment that it has generated, it seems to be on its way to achieving that status. But how much of the praise should be taken at face value, and how much of the hype is credible? In the following article we examine some of the claims made about the importance of XML and consider how far the enthusiasm about it can be justified. Will XML cause a revolution that will change the way that everyone uses the Internet, whether as searchers or data creators? Or is it a tool for certain types of e-commerce and large-scale markup, which may not have a significant impact on the majority of web users?

0.0035289964 = product of:
  0.010586989 = sum of:
    0.010586989 = product of:
      0.021173978 = sum of:
        0.021173978 = weight(_text_:of in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021173978 = score(doc=3005,freq=40.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
              6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
                40.0 = termFreq=40.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Using new communication technologies libraries must face continuously new questions, possibilities and expectations. This study discusses library-related aspects of our electronic era and how computer-related data formats affect bibliographic dataprocessing to give a summary of the most important results. First bibliographic formats for the exchange of bibliographic and related information in the machine-readable form between different types of computer systems were created more than 30 years ago. The evolution of information technologies leads to the improvement of computer systems. In addition to the development of computers and media types Internet has a great influence on data structure as well. Since the introduction of MARC bibliographic format, technology of data exchange between computers and between different computer systems has reached a very sophisticated stage and has contributed to the creation of new standards in this field. Today libraries work with this new infrastructure that induces many challenges. One of the most significant challenges is moving from a relatively homogenous bibliographic environment to a diverse one. Despite these challenges such changes are achievable and necessary to exploit possibilities of new metadata and technologies like the Internet and XML (Extensible Markup Language). XML is an open standard, a universal language for data on the Web. XML is nearly six-years-old standard designed for the description and computer-based management of (semi)-structured data and structured texts. XML gives developers the power to deliver structured data from a wide variety of applications and it is also an ideal format from server-to-server transfer of structured data. XML also isn't limited for Internet use and is an especially valuable tool in the field of library. In fact, XML's main strength - organizing information - makes it perfect for exchanging data between different systems. Tools that work with the XML can be used to process XML records without incurring additional costs associated with one's own software development. In addition, XML is also a suitable format for library web services. The Department of Computer-related Graphic Design and Library and Information Sciences of Debrecen University launched the BDML (Bibliographic Description Markup Language) development project in order to standardize bibliogrphic description with the help of XML.

Source

Librarianship in the information age: Proceedings of the 13th BOBCATSSS Symposium, 31 January - 2 February 2005 in Budapest, Hungary. Eds.: Marte Langeland u.a

0.0034625463 = product of:
  0.010387639 = sum of:
    0.010387639 = product of:
      0.020775277 = sum of:
        0.020775277 = weight(_text_:22 in 4002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020775277 = score(doc=4002,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 4002, 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=4002)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: XML Magazin und Web Services 2003, H.1, S.14 (S. Meyen): "Seit dem 22. Februar 1999 ist das Resource Description Framework (RDF) als W3C-Empfehlung verfügbar. Doch was steckt hinter diesem Standard, der das Zeitalter des Semantischen Webs einläuten soll? Was RDF bedeutet, wozu man es einsetzt, welche Vorteile es gegenüber XML hat und wie man RDF anwendet, soll in diesem Artikel erläutert werden. Schlägt man das Buch auf und beginnt, im EinleitungsKapitel zu schmökern, fällt sogleich ins Auge, dass der Leser nicht mit Lektionen im Stile von "bei XML sind die spitzen Klammern ganz wichtig" belehrt wird, obgleich es sich um ein Buch für Anfänger handelt. Im Gegenteil: Es geht gleich zur Sache und eine gesunde Mischung an Vorkenntnissen wird vorausgesetzt. Wer sich heute für XML interessiert, der hat ja mit 99-prozentiger Wahrscheinlichkeit schon seine einschlägigen Erfahrungen mit HTML und dem Web gemacht und ist kein Newbie in dem Reich der spitzen Klammern und der (einigermaßen) wohlformatierten Dokumente. Und hier liegt eine deutliche Stärke des Werkes Helmut Vonhoegens, der seinen Einsteiger-Leser recht gut einzuschätzen weiß und ihn daher praxisnah und verständlich ans Thema heranführt. Das dritte Kapitel beschäftigt sich mit der Document Type Definition (DTD) und beschreibt deren Einsatzziele und Verwendungsweisen. Doch betont der Autor hier unablässig die Begrenztheit dieses Ansatzes, welche den Ruf nach einem neuen Konzept deutlich macht: XML Schema, welches er im folgenden Kapitel darstellt. Ein recht ausführliches Kapitel widmet sich dann dem relativ aktuellen XML Schema-Konzept und erläutert dessen Vorzüge gegenüber der DTD (Modellierung komplexer Datenstrukturen, Unterstützung zahlreicher Datentypen, Zeichenbegrenzungen u.v.m.). XML Schema legt, so erfährt der Leser, wie die alte DTD, das Vokabular und die zulässige Grammatik eines XML-Dokuments fest, ist aber seinerseits ebenfalls ein XML-Dokument und kann (bzw. sollte) wie jedes andere XML auf Wohlgeformtheit überprüft werden. Weitere Kapitel behandeln die Navigations-Standards XPath, XLink und XPointer, Transformationen mit XSLT und XSL und natürlich die XML-Programmierschnittstellen DOM und SAX. Dabei kommen verschiedene Implementierungen zum Einsatz und erfreulicherweise werden Microsoft-Ansätze auf der einen und Java/Apache-Projekte auf der anderen Seite in ungefähr vergleichbarem Umfang vorgestellt. Im letzten Kapitel schließlich behandelt Vonhoegen die obligatorischen Web Services ("Webdienste") als Anwendungsfall von XML und demonstriert ein kleines C#- und ASP-basiertes Beispiel (das Java-Äquivalent mit Apache Axis fehlt leider). "Einstieg in XML" präsentiert seinen Stoff in klar verständlicher Form und versteht es, seine Leser auf einem guten Niveau "abzuholen". Es bietet einen guten Überblick über die Grundlagen von XML und kann - zumindest derzeit noch - mit recht hoher Aktualität aufwarten."

0.003382594 = product of:
  0.010147782 = sum of:
    0.010147782 = product of:
      0.020295564 = sum of:
        0.020295564 = weight(_text_:of in 4899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020295564 = score(doc=4899,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 4899, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4899)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The eventual adaptation of archives to new technological possibilities could begin with the creation of digital versions of archival finding aids, which would allow the international diffusion of descriptive information. The Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML), document type definition (DTD) for archival description known as encoded archival description (EAD) is an appropriate tool for this purpose. Presents a methodological strategy that begins with an analysis of EAD and the informational object to be marked up, allowing the semiautomatic creation of a digital version.

0.0033478998 = product of:
  0.010043699 = sum of:
    0.010043699 = product of:
      0.020087399 = sum of:
        0.020087399 = weight(_text_:of in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020087399 = score(doc=3849,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Current global communication of people and software applications over the Internet is facilitated by the use of markup languages. This entry introduces the principles and different types of markup, and the history behind the current markup languages. The basis of the modern markup languages is the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) or its restricted form Extensible Markup Language (XML). This entry describes the markup techniques used in SGML and XML, gives examples of their use, and briefly describes some representative SGML and XML applications from different domains. An important factor in the success of XML has been the possibility to reuse markup vocabularies and combine vocabularies originating from different sources. This entry describes the concepts and methods facilitating the reuse of names from earlier defined vocabularies.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.0031564306 = product of:
  0.009469291 = sum of:
    0.009469291 = product of:
      0.018938582 = sum of:
        0.018938582 = weight(_text_:of in 3889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018938582 = score(doc=3889,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 3889, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The result of community efforts among computing humanists, the Text Encoding Initiative or TEI is the de facto standard for the encoding of texts in the humanities. This entry explains the historical context of the TEI, its fundamental principles, history, and organization.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.003009685 = product of:
  0.009029055 = sum of:
    0.009029055 = product of:
      0.01805811 = sum of:
        0.01805811 = weight(_text_:of in 5903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01805811 = score(doc=5903,freq=38.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2635841 = fieldWeight in 5903, product of:
              6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
                38.0 = termFreq=38.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5903)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

RDF - the Resource Description Framework - is a foundation for processing metadata; it provides interoperability between applications that exchange machine-understandable information on the Web. RDF emphasizes facilities to enable automated processing of Web resources. RDF metadata can be used in a variety of application areas; for example: in resource discovery to provide better search engine capabilities; in cataloging for describing the content and content relationships available at a particular Web site, page, or digital library; by intelligent software agents to facilitate knowledge sharing and exchange; in content rating; in describing collections of pages that represent a single logical "document"; for describing intellectual property rights of Web pages, and in many others. RDF with digital signatures will be key to building the "Web of Trust" for electronic commerce, collaboration, and other applications. Metadata is "data about data" or specifically in the context of RDF "data describing web resources." The distinction between "data" and "metadata" is not an absolute one; it is a distinction created primarily by a particular application. Many times the same resource will be interpreted in both ways simultaneously. RDF encourages this view by using XML as the encoding syntax for the metadata. The resources being described by RDF are, in general, anything that can be named via a URI. The broad goal of RDF is to define a mechanism for describing resources that makes no assumptions about a particular application domain, nor defines the semantics of any application domain. The definition of the mechanism should be domain neutral, yet the mechanism should be suitable for describing information about any domain. This document introduces a model for representing RDF metadata and one syntax for expressing and transporting this metadata in a manner that maximizes the interoperability of independently developed web servers and clients. The syntax described in this document is best considered as a "serialization syntax" for the underlying RDF representation model. The serialization syntax is XML, XML being the W3C's work-in-progress to define a richer Web syntax for a variety of applications. RDF and XML are complementary; there will be alternate ways to represent the same RDF data model, some more suitable for direct human authoring. Future work may lead to including such alternatives in this document.

Content

RDF Data Model At the core of RDF is a model for representing named properties and their values. These properties serve both to represent attributes of resources (and in this sense correspond to usual attribute-value-pairs) and to represent relationships between resources. The RDF data model is a syntax-independent way of representing RDF statements. RDF statements that are syntactically very different could mean the same thing. This concept of equivalence in meaning is very important when performing queries, aggregation and a number of other tasks at which RDF is aimed. The equivalence is defined in a clean machine understandable way. Two pieces of RDF are equivalent if and only if their corresponding data model representations are the same. Table of contents 1. Introduction 2. RDF Data Model 3. RDF Grammar 4. Signed RDF 5. Examples 6. Appendix A: Brief Explanation of XML Namespaces

0.0029678966 = product of:
  0.00890369 = sum of:
    0.00890369 = product of:
      0.01780738 = sum of:
        0.01780738 = weight(_text_:22 in 729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01780738 = score(doc=729,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 729, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=729)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2005 15:12:11

0.0029591531 = product of:
  0.008877459 = sum of:
    0.008877459 = product of:
      0.017754918 = sum of:
        0.017754918 = weight(_text_:of in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017754918 = score(doc=3373,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A band of archivists and IT professionals at Harvard took on a project to convert nearly two million descriptions of archival collection components from marked-up text into the ArchivesSpace archival metadata management system. Starting in the mid-1990s, Harvard was an alpha implementer of EAD, an SGML (later XML) text markup language for electronic inventories, indexes, and finding aids that archivists use to wend their way through the sometimes quirky filing systems that bureaucracies establish for their records or the utter chaos in which some individuals keep their personal archives. These pathfinder documents, designed to cope with messy reality, can themselves be difficult to classify. Portions of them are rigorously structured, while other parts are narrative. Early documents predate the establishment of the standard; many feature idiosyncratic encoding that had been through several machine conversions, while others were freshly encoded and fairly consistent. In this paper, we will cover the practical and technical challenges involved in preparing a large (900MiB) corpus of XML for ingest into an open-source archival information system (ArchivesSpace). This case study will give an overview of the project, discuss problem discovery and problem solving, and address the technical challenges, analysis, solutions, and decisions and provide information on the tools produced and lessons learned. The authors of this piece are Kate Bowers, Collections Services Archivist for Metadata, Systems, and Standards at the Harvard University Archive, and Dave Mayo, a Digital Library Software Engineer for Harvard's Library and Technology Services. Kate was heavily involved in both metadata analysis and later problem solving, while Dave was the sole full-time developer assigned to the migration project.

0.0028993662 = product of:
  0.008698098 = sum of:
    0.008698098 = product of:
      0.017396197 = sum of:
        0.017396197 = weight(_text_:of in 3393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017396197 = score(doc=3393,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 3393, 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=3393)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper focuses on the optimization of the navigation through voluminous subsumption hierarchies of topics employed by Portal Catalogs like Netscape Open Directory (ODP). We advocate for the use of labeling schemes for modeling these hierarchies in order to efficiently answer queries such as subsumption check, descendants, ancestors or nearest common ancestor, which usually require costly transitive closure computations. We first give a qualitative comparison of three main families of schemes, namely bit vector, prefix and interval based schemes. We then show that two labeling schemes are good candidates for an efficient implementation of label querying using standard relational DBMS, namely, the Dewey Prefix scheme [6] and an Interval scheme by Agrawal, Borgida and Jagadish [1]. We compare their storage and query evaluation performance for the 16 ODP hierarchies using the PostgreSQL engine.

0.0028993662 = product of:
  0.008698098 = sum of:
    0.008698098 = product of:
      0.017396197 = sum of:
        0.017396197 = weight(_text_:of in 2241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017396197 = score(doc=2241,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 2241, 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=2241)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Intertextual semantics is a semiotics-based approach to the design of communication artefacts primarily aimed at modeling XML structured documents. SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System) is a specification currently under development at the W3C that allows expressing various types of controlled vocabularies in XML. In this article, we show through an example how intertextual semantics could be applied to controlled vocabularies expressed in SKOS, and argue that it could facilitate the communication of meaning among the various persons who interact with a controlled vocabulary.

Source

Culture and identity in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Tenth International ISKO Conference 5-8 August 2008, Montreal, Canada. Ed. by Clément Arsenault and Joseph T. Tennis

0.0027618767 = product of:
  0.00828563 = sum of:
    0.00828563 = product of:
      0.01657126 = sum of:
        0.01657126 = weight(_text_:of in 4886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01657126 = score(doc=4886,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 4886, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4886)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Increasingly, XML applications are appearing on the World Wide Web, from e-commerce to information management. In the case of libraries and archives, XML enables more flexible information management and retrieval than using MARC or a relational database management system. Describes a project to explore the use of XML and the EAD, and the development of a prototype electronic finding aid. It focuses on the technical aspects, and reviews the options available and the choices made. This is done within the setting of a small- to medium-sized archive with minimal tools and resources.