Search (98 results, page 2 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  1. Hoffmann, L.: Metadaten von Internetressourcen und ihre Integrierung in Bibliothekskataloge (1998) 0.02 
    0.017190015 = product of:
  0.03438003 = sum of:
    0.03438003 = product of:
      0.06876006 = sum of:
        0.06876006 = weight(_text_:22 in 1032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06876006 = score(doc=1032,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1032, 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=1032)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 5.1998 18:45:36
  2. Essen, F. von: Metadaten - neue Perspektiven für die Erschließung von Netzpublikationen in Bibliotheken : Erster META-LIB-Workshop in Göttingen (1998) 0.02 
    0.017190015 = product of:
  0.03438003 = sum of:
    0.03438003 = product of:
      0.06876006 = sum of:
        0.06876006 = weight(_text_:22 in 2275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06876006 = score(doc=2275,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2275, 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=2275)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Bericht über den Workshop, der am 22. u. 23.6.98 in der SUB Göttingen stattfand
  3. Kopácsi, S. et al.: Development of a classification server to support metadata harmonization in a long term preservation system (2016) 0.02 
    0.017190015 = product of:
  0.03438003 = sum of:
    0.03438003 = product of:
      0.06876006 = sum of:
        0.06876006 = weight(_text_:22 in 3280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06876006 = score(doc=3280,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3280, 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=3280)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
  4. Hajra, A. et al.: Enriching scientific publications from LOD repositories through word embeddings approach (2016) 0.02 
    0.017190015 = product of:
  0.03438003 = sum of:
    0.03438003 = product of:
      0.06876006 = sum of:
        0.06876006 = weight(_text_:22 in 3281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06876006 = score(doc=3281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3281, 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=3281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
  5. Mora-Mcginity, M. et al.: MusicWeb: music discovery with open linked semantic metadata (2016) 0.02 
    0.017190015 = product of:
  0.03438003 = sum of:
    0.03438003 = product of:
      0.06876006 = sum of:
        0.06876006 = weight(_text_:22 in 3282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06876006 = score(doc=3282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3282, 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=3282)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
  6. Cwiok, J.: ¬The defining element : a discussion of the creator element within metadata schemas (2005) 0.02 
    0.017091684 = product of:
  0.034183368 = sum of:
    0.034183368 = product of:
      0.068366736 = sum of:
        0.068366736 = weight(_text_:assessment in 5732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068366736 = score(doc=5732,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.2439969 = fieldWeight in 5732, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5732)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The speed with change takes place is startling and has left the information community with little time to consider how the development of electronic resources and the metadata schemas created to describe them effect how we view a work and its components. In terms of the attribution of authorship in the context of electronic works, this is a salient point. How does one determine authorship of a complex electronic resource, which is the culmination of the work of a myriad of entities? How does one determine the authorship when the content of the electronic resource may change at any moment without warning? What is the semantic content of the element that denotes authorship or responsibility for an electronic resource and how does the term used determine the element's meaning? The conceptual difficulty in the definition of the Creator element is deciphering what exactly the metadata schema should be describing. We also need to establish what purpose the element is intended to serve. In essence, we are at a crossroads. It is clear that once a work is digitized it exists in a significantly different medium, but how do we provide access to it? It is necessary to critically assess the accuracy of digital surrogates and to note that webmasters have a significant amount of intellectual responsibility invested in the sites they create. The solution to the problem in the Creator element may lie in moving from the concept of "authorship" and "origination" to a concept of intellectual responsibility. Perhaps the problematic nature of the Creator element allows us to move forward in our assessment and treatment of knowledge. One solution may be to standardize the definitions within various element sets. As the semantic web continues to grow and librarians strive to catalog electronic resources, the establishment of standard definitions for elements is becoming more relevant and important.
  7. Maron, D.; Feinberg, M.: What does it mean to adopt a metadata standard? : a case study of Omeka and the Dublin Core (2018) 0.02 
    0.017091684 = product of:
  0.034183368 = sum of:
    0.034183368 = product of:
      0.068366736 = sum of:
        0.068366736 = weight(_text_:assessment in 4248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068366736 = score(doc=4248,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.2439969 = fieldWeight in 4248, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4248)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to employ a case study of the Omeka content management system to demonstrate how the adoption and implementation of a metadata standard (in this case, Dublin Core) can result in contrasting rhetorical arguments regarding metadata utility, quality, and reliability. In the Omeka example, the author illustrate a conceptual disconnect in how two metadata stakeholders - standards creators and standards users - operationalize metadata quality. For standards creators such as the Dublin Core community, metadata quality involves implementing a standard properly, according to established usage principles; in contrast, for standards users like Omeka, metadata quality involves mere adoption of the standard, with little consideration of proper usage and accompanying principles. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses an approach based on rhetorical criticism. The paper aims to establish whether Omeka's given ends (the position that Omeka claims to take regarding Dublin Core) align with Omeka's guiding ends (Omeka's actual argument regarding Dublin Core). To make this assessment, the paper examines both textual evidence (what Omeka says) and material-discursive evidence (what Omeka does). Findings The evidence shows that, while Omeka appears to argue that adopting the Dublin Core is an integral part of Omeka's mission, the platform's lack of support for Dublin Core implementation makes an opposing argument. Ultimately, Omeka argues that the appearance of adopting a standard is more important than its careful implementation. Originality/value This study contributes to our understanding of how metadata standards are understood and used in practice. The misalignment between Omeka's position and the goals of the Dublin Core community suggests that Omeka, and some portion of its users, do not value metadata interoperability and aggregation in the same way that the Dublin Core community does. This indicates that, although certain values regarding standards adoption may be pervasive in the metadata community, these values are not equally shared amongst all stakeholders in a digital library ecosystem. The way that standards creators (Dublin Core) understand what it means to "adopt a standard" is different from the way that standards users (Omeka) understand what it means to "adopt a standard."
  8. Baroncini, S.; Sartini, B.; Erp, M. Van; Tomasi, F.; Gangemi, A.: Is dc:subject enough? : A landscape on iconography and iconology statements of knowledge graphs in the semantic web (2023) 0.02 
    0.017091684 = product of:
  0.034183368 = sum of:
    0.034183368 = product of:
      0.068366736 = sum of:
        0.068366736 = weight(_text_:assessment in 1030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068366736 = score(doc=1030,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.2439969 = fieldWeight in 1030, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1030)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In the last few years, the size of Linked Open Data (LOD) describing artworks, in general or domain-specific Knowledge Graphs (KGs), is gradually increasing. This provides (art-)historians and Cultural Heritage professionals with a wealth of information to explore. Specifically, structured data about iconographical and iconological (icon) aspects, i.e. information about the subjects, concepts and meanings of artworks, are extremely valuable for the state-of-the-art of computational tools, e.g. content recognition through computer vision. Nevertheless, a data quality evaluation for art domains, fundamental for data reuse, is still missing. The purpose of this study is filling this gap with an overview of art-historical data quality in current KGs with a focus on the icon aspects. Design/methodology/approach This study's analyses are based on established KG evaluation methodologies, adapted to the domain by addressing requirements from art historians' theories. The authors first select several KGs according to Semantic Web principles. Then, the authors evaluate (1) their structures' suitability to describe icon information through quantitative and qualitative assessment and (2) their content, qualitatively assessed in terms of correctness and completeness. Findings This study's results reveal several issues on the current expression of icon information in KGs. The content evaluation shows that these domain-specific statements are generally correct but often not complete. The incompleteness is confirmed by the structure evaluation, which highlights the unsuitability of the KG schemas to describe icon information with the required granularity. Originality/value The main contribution of this work is an overview of the actual landscape of the icon information expressed in LOD. Therefore, it is valuable to cultural institutions by providing them a first domain-specific data quality evaluation. Since this study's results suggest that the selected domain information is underrepresented in Semantic Web datasets, the authors highlight the need for the creation and fostering of such information to provide a more thorough art-historical dimension to LOD.
  9. Brugger, J.M.: Cataloging for digital libraries (1996) 0.01 
    0.0137520125 = product of:
  0.027504025 = sum of:
    0.027504025 = product of:
      0.05500805 = sum of:
        0.05500805 = weight(_text_:22 in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05500805 = score(doc=3689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3689, 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=3689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.59-73
  10. Proffitt, M.: Pulling it all together : use of METS in RLG cultural materials service (2004) 0.01 
    0.0137520125 = product of:
  0.027504025 = sum of:
    0.027504025 = product of:
      0.05500805 = sum of:
        0.05500805 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05500805 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 767, 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=767)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.65-68
  11. McCallum, S.H.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) (2004) 0.01 
    0.0137520125 = product of:
  0.027504025 = sum of:
    0.027504025 = product of:
      0.05500805 = sum of:
        0.05500805 = weight(_text_:22 in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05500805 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.82-88
  12. Rogers, D.: Cataloguing Internet resources : the evolution of the Dublin Core metadata set (1997) 0.01 
    0.0137520125 = product of:
  0.027504025 = sum of:
    0.027504025 = product of:
      0.05500805 = sum of:
        0.05500805 = weight(_text_:22 in 903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05500805 = score(doc=903,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 903, 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=903)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Cataloguing Australia. 23(1997) nos.1/2, S.17-22
  13. Wusteman, J.: Whither HTML? (2004) 0.01 
    0.0137520125 = product of:
  0.027504025 = sum of:
    0.027504025 = product of:
      0.05500805 = sum of:
        0.05500805 = weight(_text_:22 in 1001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05500805 = score(doc=1001,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1001, 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=1001)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.99-105
  14. Waugh, A.: Specifying metadata standards for metadata tool configuration (1998) 0.01 
    0.0137520125 = product of:
  0.027504025 = sum of:
    0.027504025 = product of:
      0.05500805 = sum of:
        0.05500805 = weight(_text_:22 in 3596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05500805 = score(doc=3596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3596, 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=3596)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:08:06
  15. Gardner, T.; Iannella, R.: Architecture and software solutions (2000) 0.01 
    0.0137520125 = product of:
  0.027504025 = sum of:
    0.027504025 = product of:
      0.05500805 = sum of:
        0.05500805 = weight(_text_:22 in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05500805 = score(doc=4867,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4867, 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=4867)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 6.2002 19:38:24
  16. Peereboom, M.: DutchESS : Dutch Electronic Subject Service - a Dutch national collaborative effort (2000) 0.01 
    0.0137520125 = product of:
  0.027504025 = sum of:
    0.027504025 = product of:
      0.05500805 = sum of:
        0.05500805 = weight(_text_:22 in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05500805 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4869, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 6.2002 19:39:23
  17. Gorman, M.: Metadata or cataloguing? : a false choice (1999) 0.01 
    0.0137520125 = product of:
  0.027504025 = sum of:
    0.027504025 = product of:
      0.05500805 = sum of:
        0.05500805 = weight(_text_:22 in 6095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05500805 = score(doc=6095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6095, 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=6095)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of Internet cataloging. 2(1999) no.1, S.5-22
  18. Understanding metadata (2004) 0.01 
    0.0137520125 = product of:
  0.027504025 = sum of:
    0.027504025 = product of:
      0.05500805 = sum of:
        0.05500805 = weight(_text_:22 in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05500805 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    10. 9.2004 10:22:40
  19. Cundiff, M.V.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) (2004) 0.01 
    0.0137520125 = product of:
  0.027504025 = sum of:
    0.027504025 = product of:
      0.05500805 = sum of:
        0.05500805 = weight(_text_:22 in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05500805 = score(doc=2834,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2834, 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=2834)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.52-64
  20. Hill, J.S.: Analog people for digital dreams : staffing and educational considerations for cataloging and metadata professionals (2005) 0.01 
    0.0137520125 = product of:
  0.027504025 = sum of:
    0.027504025 = product of:
      0.05500805 = sum of:
        0.05500805 = weight(_text_:22 in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05500805 = score(doc=126,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 87
  • d 9
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 89
  • s 7
  • el 5
  • m 4
  • b 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications