Search (67 results, page 1 of 4)

0.022141643 = product of:
  0.06642493 = sum of:
    0.06642493 = sum of:
      0.018938582 = weight(_text_:of in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018938582 = score(doc=2686,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 2686, 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=2686)
      0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047486346 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Metadata (structured information about an object or collection of objects) is increasingly important to libraries, archives, and museums. And although librarians are familiar with a number of issues that apply to creating and using metadata (e.g., authority control, controlled vocabularies, etc.), the world of metadata is nonetheless different than library cataloging, with its own set of challenges. Therefore, whether you are new to these concepts or quite experienced with classic cataloging, this short (20 pages) introductory paper on metadata can be helpful

Date

10. 9.2004 10:22:40

0.015472822 = product of:
  0.046418466 = sum of:
    0.046418466 = sum of:
      0.016739499 = weight(_text_:of in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016739499 = score(doc=4550,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 4550, 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=4550)
      0.029678967 = weight(_text_:22 in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029678967 = score(doc=4550,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4550, 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=4550)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In 2016, the University of Waterloo began offering a mediated copyright review and deposit service to support the growth of our institutional repository UWSpace. This resulted in the need to batch import large lists of published works into the institutional repository quickly and accurately. A range of methods have been proposed for harvesting publications metadata en masse, but many technological solutions can easily become detached from a workflow that is both reproducible for support staff and applicable to a range of situations. Many repositories offer the capacity for batch upload via CSV, so our method provides a template Python script that leverages the Habanero library for populating CSV files with existing metadata retrieved from the CrossRef API. In our case, we have combined this with useful metadata contained in a TSV file downloaded from Web of Science in order to enrich our metadata as well. The appeal of this 'low-maintenance' method is that it provides more robust options for gathering metadata semi-automatically, and only requires the user's ability to access Web of Science and the Python program, while still remaining flexible enough for local customizations.

Date

10.11.2018 16:27:22

0.013604727 = product of:
  0.04081418 = sum of:
    0.04081418 = sum of:
      0.017071007 = weight(_text_:of in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017071007 = score(doc=1236,freq=26.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2491759 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
            5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
              26.0 = termFreq=26.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
      0.023743173 = weight(_text_:22 in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023743173 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Dublin Core is often presented as a modern form of catalog card -- a set of elements (and now qualifiers) that describe resources in a complete package. Sometimes it is proposed as an exchange format for sharing records among multiple collections. The founding principle that "every element is optional and repeatable" reinforces the notion that a Dublin Core description is to be taken as a whole. This paper, in contrast, is based on a much different premise: Dublin Core is a language. More precisely, it is a small language for making a particular class of statements about resources. Like natural languages, it has a vocabulary of word-like terms, the two classes of which -- elements and qualifiers -- function within statements like nouns and adjectives; and it has a syntax for arranging elements and qualifiers into statements according to a simple pattern. Whenever tourists order a meal or ask directions in an unfamiliar language, considerate native speakers will spontaneously limit themselves to basic words and simple sentence patterns along the lines of "I am so-and-so" or "This is such-and-such". Linguists call this pidginization. In such situations, a small phrase book or translated menu can be most helpful. By analogy, today's Web has been called an Internet Commons where users and information providers from a wide range of scientific, commercial, and social domains present their information in a variety of incompatible data models and description languages. In this context, Dublin Core presents itself as a metadata pidgin for digital tourists who must find their way in this linguistically diverse landscape. Its vocabulary is small enough to learn quickly, and its basic pattern is easily grasped. It is well-suited to serve as an auxiliary language for digital libraries. This grammar starts by defining terms. It then follows a 200-year-old tradition of English grammar teaching by focusing on the structure of single statements. It concludes by looking at the growing dictionary of Dublin Core vocabulary terms -- its registry, and at how statements can be used to build the metadata equivalent of paragraphs and compositions -- the application profile.

Date

26.12.2011 14:01:22

0.011871587 = product of:
  0.03561476 = sum of:
    0.03561476 = product of:
      0.07122952 = sum of:
        0.07122952 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07122952 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.0059357933 = product of:
  0.01780738 = sum of:
    0.01780738 = product of:
      0.03561476 = sum of:
        0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03561476 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.0038202507 = product of:
  0.011460752 = sum of:
    0.011460752 = product of:
      0.022921504 = sum of:
        0.022921504 = weight(_text_:of in 1237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022921504 = score(doc=1237,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 1237, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1237)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Metadata is a keystone component for a broad spectrum of applications that are emerging on the Web to help stitch together content and services and make them more visible to users. The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) has led the development of structured metadata to support resource discovery. This international community has, over a period of 6 years and 8 workshops, brought forth: * A core standard that enhances cross-disciplinary discovery and has been translated into 25 languages to date; * A conceptual framework that supports the modular development of auxiliary metadata components; * An open consensus building process that has brought to fruition Australian, European and North American standards with promise as a global standard for resource discovery; * An open community of hundreds of practitioners and theorists who have found a common ground of principles, procedures, core semantics, and a framework to support interoperable metadata. The 8th Dublin Core Metadata Workshop capped an active year of progress that included standardization of the 15-element core foundation and approval of an initial array of Dublin Core Qualifiers. While there is important work to be done to promote stability and increased adoption of the Dublin Core, the time has come to look beyond the core elements towards a broader metadata agenda. This report describes the new mission statement of the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) that supports the agenda, recapitulates the important milestones of the year 2000, outlines activities of the 8th DCMI workshop in Ottawa, and summarizes the 2001 workplan.

0.003743066 = product of:
  0.0112291975 = sum of:
    0.0112291975 = product of:
      0.022458395 = sum of:
        0.022458395 = weight(_text_:of in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022458395 = score(doc=1323,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 1323, 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=1323)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.003743066 = product of:
  0.0112291975 = sum of:
    0.0112291975 = product of:
      0.022458395 = sum of:
        0.022458395 = weight(_text_:of in 2321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022458395 = score(doc=2321,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 2321, 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=2321)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper provides a brief overview of the evolving descriptive metadata landscape, one phenomenon of which can be characterized as "cross-community" metadata as manifested in records that are the result of a combination of carefully considered data value and data content standards. he online catalog of the Morgan Library & Museum provides a real-life illustration of how diverse data content standards and vocabulary tools can be integrated within the classic data structure/technical interchange format of MARC21 to better describe unique, museum-type objects, and to provide better end-user access and understanding. The Morgan experience also shows the value of developing a collaborative model for metadata creation that combines the subject expertise of curators and scholars with the cataloging expertise and knowledge of standards possessed by librarians.

0.0036536194 = product of:
  0.010960858 = sum of:
    0.010960858 = product of:
      0.021921717 = sum of:
        0.021921717 = weight(_text_:of in 6601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021921717 = score(doc=6601,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 6601, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Four sets of Web pages previously visited in the summer of 2000 were revisited one year later. Of 707 pages containing metatag descriptions in 2000, 586 retained descriptions in 2001, and, of 1,230 pages lacking descriptions in 2000, 101 had descriptions in 2001. Home pages appeared to both lose and change descriptions more than other pages, with about 19% of descriptions changed in the two sets where home pages predominated versus about 12% in the other two sets. About two-thirds of changes involved minor revisions, and changes fell into a wide variety of categories. Some implications for software to assist in description revision are discussed

0.0036536194 = product of:
  0.010960858 = sum of:
    0.010960858 = product of:
      0.021921717 = sum of:
        0.021921717 = weight(_text_:of in 531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021921717 = score(doc=531,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 531, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=531)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

KoT (Kinds of Tags) is an ongoing joint collaborative research effort with many participants worldwide, including the University of Minho, UKOLN, the University of Bologna, the Université Libre de Bruxelles and La Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. It is focused on the analysis of tags that are in common use in the practice of social tagging, with the aim of discovering how easily tags can be 'normalised' for interoperability with standard metadata environments such as the DC Metadata Terms.

0.0036536194 = product of:
  0.010960858 = sum of:
    0.010960858 = product of:
      0.021921717 = sum of:
        0.021921717 = weight(_text_:of in 1231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021921717 = score(doc=1231,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 1231, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is an infrastructure that enables the encoding, exchange and reuse of structured metadata. RDF is an application of XML that imposes needed structural constraints to provide unambiguous methods of expressing semantics. RDF additionally provides a means for publishing both human-readable and machine-processable vocabularies designed to encourage the reuse and extension of metadata semantics among disparate information communities. The structural constraints RDF imposes to support the consistent encoding and exchange of standardized metadata provides for the interchangeability of separate packages of metadata defined by different resource description communities.

0.00355646 = product of:
  0.0106693795 = sum of:
    0.0106693795 = product of:
      0.021338759 = sum of:
        0.021338759 = weight(_text_:of in 1176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021338759 = score(doc=1176,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 1176, 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=1176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The rapid growth of Internet resources and digital collections has been accompanied by a proliferation of metadata schemas, each of which has been designed based on the requirements of particular user communities, intended users, types of materials, subject domains, project needs, etc. Problems arise when building large digital libraries or repositories with metadata records that were prepared according to diverse schemas. This article (published in two parts) contains an analysis of the methods that have been used to achieve or improve interoperability among metadata schemas and applications, for the purposes of facilitating conversion and exchange of metadata and enabling cross-domain metadata harvesting and federated searches. From a methodological point of view, implementing interoperability may be considered at different levels of operation: schema level, record level, and repository level. Part I of the article intends to explain possible situations in which metadata schemas may be created or implemented, whether in individual projects or in integrated repositories. It also discusses approaches used at the schema level. Part II of the article will discuss metadata interoperability efforts at the record and repository levels.

0.0035509837 = product of:
  0.010652951 = sum of:
    0.010652951 = product of:
      0.021305902 = sum of:
        0.021305902 = weight(_text_:of in 3523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021305902 = score(doc=3523,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 3523, 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=3523)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

On December 12, 2016, Carl Stahmer and MacKenzie Smith presented at the CNI Members Fall Meeting about the BIBFLOW project, self-described on Twitter as "a two-year project of the UC Davis University Library and Zepheira investigating the future of library technical services." In her opening remarks, Ms. Smith, University Librarian at UC Davis, stated that one of the goals of the project was to devise a roadmap "to get from where we are today, which is kind of the 1970s with a little lipstick on it, to 2020, which is where we're going to be very soon." The notion that where libraries are today is somehow behind the times is one of the commonly heard rationales behind a move to linked data. Stated more precisely: - Libraries devote considerable time and resources to producing high-quality bibliographic metadata - This metadata is stored in unconnected silos - This metadata is in a format (MARC) that is incompatible with technologies of the emerging Semantic Web - The visibility of library metadata is diminished as a result of the two points above Are these assertions true? If yes, is linked data the solution?

0.0035289964 = product of:
  0.010586989 = sum of:
    0.010586989 = product of:
      0.021173978 = sum of:
        0.021173978 = weight(_text_:of in 4183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021173978 = score(doc=4183,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 4183, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4183)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A status of cataloging in Thailand shows a movement toward the use of information technology. The international standards for cataloging are being used and modified to effectively organize the information resources. An expanded scope of resources needed cataloging now covers cataloging the Web resources. The paper mentions Thailand's participation in the international working group on the use of metadata for libraries

0.0035207155 = product of:
  0.010562146 = sum of:
    0.010562146 = product of:
      0.021124292 = sum of:
        0.021124292 = weight(_text_:of in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021124292 = score(doc=1210,freq=52.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.30833945 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
              7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
                52.0 = termFreq=52.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Semantic Web activity is a W3C project whose goal is to enable a 'cooperative' Web where machines and humans can exchange electronic content that has clear-cut, unambiguous meaning. This vision is based on the automated sharing of metadata terms across Web applications. The declaration of schemas in metadata registries advance this vision by providing a common approach for the discovery, understanding, and exchange of semantics. However, many of the issues regarding registries are not clear, and ideas vary regarding their scope and purpose. Additionally, registry issues are often difficult to describe and comprehend without a working example. This article will explore the role of metadata registries and will describe three prototypes, written by the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. The article will outline how the prototypes are being used to demonstrate and evaluate application scope, functional requirements, and technology solutions for metadata registries. Metadata schema registries are, in effect, databases of schemas that can trace an historical line back to shared data dictionaries and the registration process encouraged by the ISO/IEC 11179 community. New impetus for the development of registries has come with the development activities surrounding creation of the Semantic Web. The motivation for establishing registries arises from domain and standardization communities, and from the knowledge management community. Examples of current registry activity include:
* Agencies maintaining directories of data elements in a domain area in accordance with ISO/IEC 11179 (This standard specifies good practice for data element definition as well as the registration process. Example implementations are the National Health Information Knowledgebase hosted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the Environmental Data Registry hosted by the US Environmental Protection Agency.); * The xml.org directory of the Extended Markup Language (XML) document specifications facilitating re-use of Document Type Definition (DTD), hosted by the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS); * The MetaForm database of Dublin Core usage and mappings maintained at the State and University Library in Goettingen; * The Semantic Web Agreement Group Dictionary, a database of terms for the Semantic Web that can be referred to by humans and software agents; * LEXML, a multi-lingual and multi-jurisdictional RDF Dictionary for the legal world; * The SCHEMAS registry maintained by the European Commission funded SCHEMAS project, which indexes several metadata element sets as well as a large number of activity reports describing metadata related activities and initiatives. Metadata registries essentially provide an index of terms. Given the distributed nature of the Web, there are a number of ways this can be accomplished. For example, the registry could link to terms and definitions in schemas published by implementers and stored locally by the schema maintainer. Alternatively, the registry might harvest various metadata schemas from their maintainers. Registries provide 'added value' to users by indexing schemas relevant to a particular 'domain' or 'community of use' and by simplifying the navigation of terms by enabling multiple schemas to be accessed from one view. An important benefit of this approach is an increase in the reuse of existing terms, rather than users having to reinvent them. Merging schemas to one view leads to harmonization between applications and helps avoid duplication of effort. Additionally, the establishment of registries to index terms actively being used in local implementations facilitates the metadata standards activity by providing implementation experience transferable to the standards-making process.

0.0034396404 = product of:
  0.010318921 = sum of:
    0.010318921 = product of:
      0.020637842 = sum of:
        0.020637842 = weight(_text_:of in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020637842 = score(doc=1192,freq=38.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.30123898 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
              6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
                38.0 = termFreq=38.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In the June 2003 issue of D-Lib Magazine, Kenney et al. (2003) discuss a comparative study between Cornell's email reference staff and Google's Answers service. This interesting study provided insights on the potential impact of "computing and simple algorithms combined with human intelligence" for library reference services. As mentioned in the Kenney et al. article, Bill Arms (2000) had discussed the possibilities of automated digital libraries in an even earlier D-Lib article. Arms discusses not only automating reference services, but also another library function that seems to inspire lively debates about automation-metadata creation. While intended to illuminate, these debates sometimes generate more heat than light. In an effort to explore the potential for automating metadata generation, the Digital Knowledge Center (DKC) of the Sheridan Libraries at The Johns Hopkins University developed and tested an automated name authority control (ANAC) tool. ANAC represents a component of a digital workflow management system developed in connection with the digital Lester S. Levy Collection of Sheet Music. The evaluation of ANAC followed the spirit of the Kenney et al. study that was, as they stated, "more exploratory than scientific." These ANAC evaluation results are shared with the hope of fostering constructive dialogue and discussions about the potential for semi-automated techniques or frameworks for library functions and services such as metadata creation. The DKC's research agenda emphasizes the development of tools that combine automated processes and human intervention, with the overall goal of involving humans at higher levels of analysis and decision-making. Others have looked at issues regarding the automated generation of metadata. A session at the 2003 Joint Conference on Digital Libraries was devoted to automatic metadata creation, and a session at the 2004 conference addressed automated name disambiguation. Commercial vendors such as OCLC, Marcive, and LTI have long used automated techniques for matching names to Library of Congress authority records. We began developing ANAC as a component of a larger suite of open source tools to support workflow management for digital projects. This article describes the goals for the ANAC tool, provides an overview of the metadata records used for testing, describes the architecture for ANAC, and concludes with discussions of the methodology and evaluation of the experiment comparing human cataloging and ANAC-generated results.

0.003382594 = product of:
  0.010147782 = sum of:
    0.010147782 = product of:
      0.020295564 = sum of:
        0.020295564 = weight(_text_:of in 1228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020295564 = score(doc=1228,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 1228, 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=1228)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Interoperability between digital libraries depends on effective sharing of metadata. Successful sharing of metadata requires common standards for metadata exchange. Previous efforts have focused on either defining a single metadata standard, such as Dublin Core, or building digital library middleware, such as Z39.50 or Stanford's Digital Library Interoperability Protocol. In this article, we propose a distributed architecture for managing metadata and metadata schema. Instead of normalizing all metadata and schema to a single format, we have focused on building a middleware framework that tolerates heterogeneity. By providing facilities for typing and dynamic conversion of metadata, our system permits continual introduction of new forms of metadata with minimal impact on compatibility.

0.003382594 = product of:
  0.010147782 = sum of:
    0.010147782 = product of:
      0.020295564 = sum of:
        0.020295564 = weight(_text_:of in 5236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020295564 = score(doc=5236,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 5236, 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=5236)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Black Book Interactive Project at the University of Kansas (KU) is developing an expanded corpus of novels by African American authors, with an emphasis on lesser known writers and a goal of expanding research in this field. Using a custom metadata schema with an emphasis on race-related elements, each novel is analyzed for a variety of elements such as literary style, targeted content analysis, historical context, and other areas. Librarians at KU have worked to develop a variety of computational text analysis processes designed to assist with specific aspects of this metadata collection, including text mining and natural language processing, automated subject extraction based on word sense disambiguation, harvesting data from Wikidata, and other actions.

0.0033478998 = product of:
  0.010043699 = sum of:
    0.010043699 = product of:
      0.020087399 = sum of:
        0.020087399 = weight(_text_:of in 1199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020087399 = score(doc=1199,freq=36.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 1199, product of:
              6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
                36.0 = termFreq=36.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1199)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

On 18 November 2002, at a meeting organised by the CORES Project (Information Society Technologies Programme, European Union), several organisations regarded as maintenance authorities for metadata elements achieved consensus on a resolution to assign Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) to metadata elements as a useful first step towards the development of mapping infrastructures and interoperability services. The signatories of the CORES Resolution agreed to promote this consensus in their communities and beyond and to implement an action plan in the following six months. Six months having passed, the maintainers of GILS, ONIX, MARC 21, CERIF, DOI, IEEE/LOM, and Dublin Core report on their implementations of the resolution and highlight issues of relevance to establishing good-practice conventions for declaring, identifying, and maintaining metadata elements more generally. In June 2003, the resolution was also endorsed by the maintainers of UNIMARC. The "Resolution on Metadata Element Identifiers", or CORES Resolution, is an agreement among the maintenance organisations for several major metadata standards - GILS, ONIX, MARC 21, UNIMARC, CERIF, DOI®, IEEE/LOM, and Dublin Core - to identify their metadata elements using Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs). The Uniform Resource Identifier, defined in the IETF RFC 2396 as "a compact string of characters for identifying an abstract or physical resource", has been promoted for use as a universal form of identification by the World Wide Web Consortium. The CORES Resolution, formulated at a meeting organised by the European project CORES in November 2002, included a commitment to publicise the consensus statement to a wider audience of metadata standards initiatives and to implement key points of the agreement within the following six months - specifically, to define URI assignment mechanisms, assign URIs to elements, and formulate policies for the persistence of those URIs. This article marks the passage of six months by reporting on progress made in implementing this common action plan. After presenting the text of the CORES Resolution and its three "clarifications", the article summarises the position of each signatory organisation towards assigning URIs to its metadata elements, noting any practical or strategic problems that may have emerged. These progress reports were based on input from Thomas Baker, José Borbinha, Eliot Christian, Erik Duval, Keith Jeffery, Rebecca Guenther, and Norman Paskin. The article closes with a few general observations about these first steps towards the clarification of shared conventions for the identification of metadata elements and perhaps, one can hope, towards the ultimate goal of improving interoperability among a diversity of metadata communities.

0.003271467 = product of:
  0.009814401 = sum of:
    0.009814401 = product of:
      0.019628802 = sum of:
        0.019628802 = weight(_text_:of in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019628802 = score(doc=1216,freq=88.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 1216, product of:
              9.380832 = tf(freq=88.0), with freq of:
                88.0 = termFreq=88.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1216)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reality is messy. Individuals perceive or define objects differently. Objects may change over time, morphing into new versions of their former selves or into things altogether different. A book can give rise to a translation, derivation, or edition, and these resulting objects are related in complex ways to each other and to the people and contexts in which they were created or transformed. Providing a normalized view of such a messy reality is a precondition for managing information. From the first library catalogs, through Melvil Dewey's Decimal Classification system in the nineteenth century, to today's MARC encoding of AACR2 cataloging rules, libraries have epitomized the process of what David Levy calls "order making", whereby catalogers impose a veneer of regularity on the natural disorder of the artifacts they encounter. The pre-digital library within which the Catalog and its standards evolved was relatively self-contained and controlled. Creating and maintaining catalog records was, and still is, the task of professionals. Today's Web, in contrast, has brought together a diversity of information management communities, with a variety of order-making standards, into what Stuart Weibel has called the Internet Commons. The sheer scale of this context has motivated a search for new ways to describe and index information. Second-generation search engines such as Google can yield astonishingly good search results, while tools such as ResearchIndex for automatic citation indexing and techniques for inferring "Web communities" from constellations of hyperlinks promise even better methods for focusing queries on information from authoritative sources. Such "automated digital libraries," according to Bill Arms, promise to radically reduce the cost of managing information. Alongside the development of such automated methods, there is increasing interest in metadata as a means of imposing pre-defined order on Web content. While the size and changeability of the Web makes professional cataloging impractical, a minimal amount of information ordering, such as that represented by the Dublin Core (DC), may vastly improve the quality of an automatic index at low cost; indeed, recent work suggests that some types of simple description may be generated with little or no human intervention.
Metadata is not monolithic. Instead, it is helpful to think of metadata as multiple views that can be projected from a single information object. Such views can form the basis of customized information services, such as search engines. Multiple views -- different types of metadata associated with a Web resource -- can facilitate a "drill-down" search paradigm, whereby people start their searches at a high level and later narrow their focus using domain-specific search categories. In Figure 1, for example, Mona Lisa may be viewed from the perspective of non-specialized searchers, with categories that are valid across domains (who painted it and when?); in the context of a museum (when and how was it acquired?); in the geo-spatial context of a walking tour using mobile devices (where is it in the gallery?); and in a legal framework (who owns the rights to its reproduction?). Multiple descriptive views imply a modular approach to metadata. Modularity is the basis of metadata architectures such as the Resource Description Framework (RDF), which permit different communities of expertise to associate and maintain multiple metadata packages for Web resources. As noted elsewhere, static association of multiple metadata packages with resources is but one way of achieving modularity. Another method is to computationally derive order-making views customized to the current needs of a client. This paper examines the evolution and scope of the Dublin Core from this perspective of metadata modularization. Dublin Core began in 1995 with a specific goal and scope -- as an easy-to-create and maintain descriptive format to facilitate cross-domain resource discovery on the Web. Over the years, this goal of "simple metadata for coarse-granularity discovery" came to mix with another goal -- that of community and domain-specific resource description and its attendant complexity. A notion of "qualified Dublin Core" evolved whereby the model for simple resource discovery -- a set of simple metadata elements in a flat, document-centric model -- would form the basis of more complex descriptions by treating the values of its elements as entities with properties ("component elements") in their own right.
At the time of writing, the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) has clarified its commitment to the simple approach. The qualification principles announced in early 2000 support the use of DC elements as the basis for simple statements about resources, rather than as the foundation for more descriptive clauses. This paper takes a critical look at some of the issues that led up to this renewed commitment to simplicity. We argue that: * There remains a compelling need for simple, "pidgin" metadata. From a technical and economic perspective, document-centric metadata, where simple string values are associated with a finite set of properties, is most appropriate for generic, cross-domain discovery queries in the Internet Commons. Such metadata is not necessarily fixed in physical records, but may be projected algorithmically from more complex metadata or from content itself. * The Dublin Core, while far from perfect from an engineering perspective, is an acceptable standard for such simple metadata. Agreements in the global information space are as much social as technical, and the process by which the Dublin Core has been developed, involving a broad cross-section of international participants, is a model for such "socially developed" standards. * Efforts to introduce complexity into Dublin Core are misguided. Complex descriptions may be necessary for some Web resources and for some purposes, such as administration, preservation, and reference linking. However, complex descriptions require more expressive data models that differentiate between agents, documents, contexts, events, and the like. An attempt to intermix simplicity and complexity, and the data models most appropriate for them, defeats the equally noble goals of cross-domain description and extensive resource description. * The principle of modularity suggests that metadata formats tailored for simplicity be used alongside others tailored for complexity.