Search (271 results, page 1 of 14)

  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  1. Craven, T.C.: 'DESCRIPTION' META tags in locally linked web pages (2001) 0.12 
    0.122579426 = product of:
  0.24515885 = sum of:
    0.19027077 = weight(_text_:description in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19027077 = score(doc=701,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.8219003 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
    0.05488808 = weight(_text_:26 in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05488808 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.31214553 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Advice given in printed and web-based sources on HTML META tags with NAME='DESCRIPTION' is surveyed.To determin patterns of relationships among descriptions on the same site,links were followed automatically from 460 pages registered withYahoo! and previously found to contain descriptions.Sites where the registered page pointed to many other pages were significantly less likely to reuse the same description on those other pages; where different descriptions were used words from the registered page's description tended to appear toward the beginnings of other descriptions.
    Date
    20. 1.2007 19:36:26
  2. Zavalina, O.; Palmer, C.L.; Jackson, A.S.; Han, M.-J.: Assessing descriptive substance in free-text collection-level metadata (2008) 0.12 
    0.12173304 = product of:
  0.16231072 = sum of:
    0.10090631 = weight(_text_:description in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10090631 = score(doc=2647,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.43587846 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
    0.04116606 = weight(_text_:26 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04116606 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
    0.020238347 = product of:
      0.040476695 = sum of:
        0.040476695 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040476695 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Collection-level metadata has the potential to provide important information about the features and purpose of individual collections. This paper reports on a content analysis of collection records in an aggregation of cultural heritage collections. The findings show that the free-text Description field often provides more accurate and complete representation of subjects and object types than the specified fields. Properties such as importance, uniqueness, comprehensiveness, provenance, and creator are articulated, as well as other vital contextual information about the intentions of a collector and the value of a collection, as a whole, for scholarly users. The results demonstrate that the semantically rich free-text Description field is essential to understanding the context of collections in large aggregations and can serve as a source of data for enhancing and customizing controlled vocabularies.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  3. Assumpção, F.S.; Santarem Segundo, J.E.; Ventura Amorim da Costa Santos, P.L.: RDA element sets and RDA value vocabularies : vocabularies for resource description in the Semantic Web (2015) 0.12 
    0.12077427 = product of:
  0.16103236 = sum of:
    0.10090631 = weight(_text_:description in 2389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10090631 = score(doc=2389,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.43587846 = fieldWeight in 2389, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2389)
    0.04116606 = weight(_text_:26 in 2389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04116606 = score(doc=2389,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 2389, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2389)
    0.018959979 = product of:
      0.037919957 = sum of:
        0.037919957 = weight(_text_:access in 2389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037919957 = score(doc=2389,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 2389, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2389)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Considering the need for metadata standards suitable for the Semantic Web, this paper describes the RDA Element Sets and the RDA Value Vocabularies that were created from attributes and relationships defined in Resource Description and Access (RDA). First, we present the vocabularies included in RDA Element Sets: the vocabularies of classes, of properties and of properties unconstrained by FRBR entities; and then we present the RDA Value Vocabularies, which are under development. As a conclusion, we highlight that these vocabularies can be used to meet the needs of different contexts due to the unconstrained properties and to the independence of the vocabularies of properties from the vocabularies of values and vice versa.
    Date
    19.12.2014 19:26:51
  4. Smits, J.: Metadata : an introduction (1999) 0.12 
    0.11504287 = product of:
  0.1533905 = sum of:
    0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 5333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08324346 = score(doc=5333,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 5333, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5333)
    0.048027072 = weight(_text_:26 in 5333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048027072 = score(doc=5333,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.27312735 = fieldWeight in 5333, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5333)
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 5333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=5333,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 5333, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    With the transition from cartographic materials to spatial information the nature and amount of access data for the library field is changing. Besides bibliographic data there exists now a range of metadata, each kind for specific purposes within specific user fields. To define their relation to each other they have been put into a diagram. Through the Resource Description Framework these should all be available through a common interface for Internet-searching. To prevent confusion spatial metadata is defined. Spatial metadata introduces new elements to descriptions with new application possibilities.
    Date
    26. 7.2006 12:05:51
  5. Tosaka, Y.; Park, J.-r.: RDA: Resource description & access : a survey of the current state of the art (2013) 0.11 
    0.10555364 = product of:
  0.14073819 = sum of:
    0.08408859 = weight(_text_:description in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08408859 = score(doc=677,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.36323205 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
    0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03430505 = score(doc=677,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
    0.02234455 = product of:
      0.0446891 = sum of:
        0.0446891 = weight(_text_:access in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0446891 = score(doc=677,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.26479906 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Resource Description & Access (RDA) is intended to provide a flexible and extensible framework that can accommodate all types of content and media within rapidly evolving digital environments while also maintaining compatibility with the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2). The cataloging community is grappling with practical issues in navigating the transition from AACR2 to RDA; there is a definite need to evaluate major subject areas and broader themes in information organization under the new RDA paradigm. This article aims to accomplish this task through a thorough and critical review of the emerging RDA literature published from 2005 to 2011. The review mostly concerns key areas of difference between RDA and AACR2, the relationship of the new cataloging code to metadata standards, the impact on encoding standards such as Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), end user considerations, and practitioners' views on RDA implementation and training. Future research will require more in-depth studies of RDA's expected benefits and the manner in which the new cataloging code will improve resource retrieval and bibliographic control for users and catalogers alike over AACR2. The question as to how the cataloging community can best move forward to the post-AACR2/MARC environment must be addressed carefully so as to chart the future of bibliographic control in the evolving environment of information production, management, and use.
    Date
    23. 3.2013 12:26:02
  6. Taniguchi, S.: Understanding RDA as a DC application profile (2013) 0.10 
    0.095029645 = product of:
  0.19005929 = sum of:
    0.16477932 = weight(_text_:description in 1906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16477932 = score(doc=1906,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.71178657 = fieldWeight in 1906, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1906)
    0.025279973 = product of:
      0.050559945 = sum of:
        0.050559945 = weight(_text_:access in 1906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050559945 = score(doc=1906,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.29958594 = fieldWeight in 1906, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The applicability of Dublin Core Application Profiles (DCAP) and the Singapore Framework for DCAPs to Resource Description and Access (RDA) were assessed. First, a draft RDA application profile is outlined, which reveals their applicability to RDA as a whole. Then, the current situation and issues involved in defining and specifying the RDA vocabularies, description structures, and syntaxes, all of which form the RDA application profile, are reviewed, for four levels of the RDA description structure; that is, the levels of aggregates and components of statements.
  7. Broughton, V.: Automatic metadata generation : Digital resource description without human intervention (2007) 0.09 
    0.09158988 = product of:
  0.18317977 = sum of:
    0.14270307 = weight(_text_:description in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14270307 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.6164252 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
    0.040476695 = product of:
      0.08095339 = sum of:
        0.08095339 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08095339 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 9.2007 15:41:14
  8. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.09 
    0.08821184 = product of:
  0.11761579 = sum of:
    0.05945961 = weight(_text_:description in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05945961 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.25684384 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
    0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03430505 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
    0.023851123 = product of:
      0.047702245 = sum of:
        0.047702245 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047702245 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Folksonomy is the result of describing Web resources with tags created by Web users. Although it has become a popular application for the description of resources, in general terms Folksonomies are not being conveniently integrated in metadata. However, if the appropriate metadata elements are identified, then further work may be conducted to automatically assign tags to these elements (RDF properties) and use them in Semantic Web applications. This article presents research carried out to continue the project Kinds of Tags, which intends to identify elements required for metadata originating from folksonomies and to propose an application profile for DC Social Tagging. The work provides information that may be used by software applications to assign tags to metadata elements and, therefore, means for tags to be conveniently gathered by metadata interoperability tools. Despite the unquestionably high value of DC and the significance of the already existing properties in DC Terms, the pilot study show revealed a significant number of tags for which no corresponding properties yet existed. A need for new properties, such as Action, Depth, Rate, and Utility was determined. Those potential new properties will have to be validated in a later stage by the DC Social Tagging Community.
    Pages
    S.14-22
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  9. Pitti, D.V.: Encoded Archival Description (EAD) (2009) 0.08 
    0.083995126 = product of:
  0.16799025 = sum of:
    0.14564571 = weight(_text_:description in 3777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14564571 = score(doc=3777,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.6291363 = fieldWeight in 3777, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3777)
    0.02234455 = product of:
      0.0446891 = sum of:
        0.0446891 = weight(_text_:access in 3777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0446891 = score(doc=3777,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.26479906 = fieldWeight in 3777, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3777)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Encoded Archival Description (EAD) is an international digital standard based on Extensible Markup Language (XML) for encoding descriptions of archival records. People living their lives as individuals, as members of families, and as members of corporate bodies create and assemble records that serve as instruments for carrying out or documenting the performance of activities. Based on the archival principles of respect des fonds (or provenance) and original order, archivists traditionally have treated all of the records created and assembled by one individual, family, or corporate body as a collection or fonds. Archivists describe records as an essential part of their responsibility for preserving and facilitating access to and use of archives. Archival description provides information essential for establishing the authenticity and completeness of fonds, and serves effective administration, discovery, access, and understanding of records. Traditionally archivists have described each fonds hierarchically in a single apparatus commonly called a finding aid. Until the advent of computing, finding aids were typically in printed form. In the 1990s, archivists created EAD, an encoding standard for archival description. EAD is based technologically on XML and intellectually on General International Standard Archival Description (ISAD(G)), a descriptive framework developed by the International Council of Archives (ICA). As with all standards, EAD will continue to develop in the future. Future changes to EAD will be influenced by ICA descriptive standards that complement ISAD(G) and encoding standards based on them that will complement EAD. This entry is organized into six sections: introduction, archival records, archival description, EAD, history, and future.
  10. Guenther, R.S.: Using the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) for resource description : guidelines and applications (2004) 0.08 
    0.08389666 = product of:
  0.16779332 = sum of:
    0.1441819 = weight(_text_:description in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1441819 = score(doc=2837,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.6228132 = fieldWeight in 2837, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2837)
    0.023611406 = product of:
      0.04722281 = sum of:
        0.04722281 = weight(_text_:22 in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04722281 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2837, 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=2837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This paper describes the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS), its accompanying documentation and some of its applications. It reviews the MODS user guidelines provided by the Library of Congress and how they enable a user of the schema to consistently apply MODS as a metadata scheme. Because the schema itself could not fully document appropriate usage, the guidelines provide element definitions, history, relationships with other elements, usage conventions, and examples. Short descriptions of some MODS applications are given and a more detailed discussion of its use in the Library of Congress's Minerva project for Web archiving is given.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.89-98
  11. McCallum, S.H.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) (2004) 0.08 
    0.08076311 = product of:
  0.16152622 = sum of:
    0.13454175 = weight(_text_:description in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13454175 = score(doc=81,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.5811713 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
    0.026984464 = product of:
      0.05396893 = sum of:
        0.05396893 = weight(_text_:22 in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05396893 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = 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(2/4)
    Abstract
    This paper provides an introduction to the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS), a MARC21 compatible XML schema for descriptive metadata. It explains the requirements that the schema targets and the special features that differentiate it from MARC, such as user-oriented tags, regrouped data elements, linking, recursion, and accommodations for electronic resources.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.82-88
  12. Heastrom, M.: Descriptive practices for electronic records : deciding what is essential and imaging what is possible (1993) 0.07 
    0.074503206 = product of:
  0.14900641 = sum of:
    0.11772404 = weight(_text_:description in 8332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11772404 = score(doc=8332,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.5085249 = fieldWeight in 8332, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8332)
    0.03128237 = product of:
      0.06256474 = sum of:
        0.06256474 = weight(_text_:access in 8332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06256474 = score(doc=8332,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.3707187 = fieldWeight in 8332, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8332)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Revised version of a paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of Canadian Archivists, Montreal, 12 Sept 92. The challenges raised by electronic records present an opportunity to define the essential purposes for description: to reassess its objectives, agents and timing; and to imagine new approaches that harness the power of information technology while respecting archival principles. Discusses how archival description must support the need to identify, gain access, understand the meaning, interpret the content, determine authenticity, and manage electronic records to ensure continuing access. Proposes management of metadata as an alternative strategy to current descriptive practices
  13. Hider, P.: Information resource description : creating and managing metadata (2012) 0.07 
    0.074377865 = product of:
  0.14875573 = sum of:
    0.13295574 = weight(_text_:description in 2086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13295574 = score(doc=2086,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.5743203 = fieldWeight in 2086, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2086)
    0.015799982 = product of:
      0.031599965 = sum of:
        0.031599965 = weight(_text_:access in 2086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031599965 = score(doc=2086,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 2086, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2086)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    An overview of the field of information organization that examines resource description as both a product and process of the contemporary digital environment. This timely book employs the unifying mechanism of the semantic web and the resource description framework to integrate the various traditions and practices of information and knowledge organization. Uniquely, it covers both the domain-specific traditions and practices and the practices of the 'metadata movement' through a single lens - that of resource description in the broadest, semantic web sense. This approach more readily accommodates coverage of the new Resource Description and Access (RDA) standard, which aims to move library cataloguing into the centre of the semantic web. The work surrounding RDA looks set to revolutionise the field of information organization, and this book will bring both the standard and its model and concepts into focus.
  14. Banush, D.; Kurth, M:; Pajerek, J.: Rehabilitating killer serials : an automated strategy for maintaining E-journal metadata (2005) 0.07 
    0.06893965 = product of:
  0.1378793 = sum of:
    0.05945961 = weight(_text_:description in 124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05945961 = score(doc=124,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.25684384 = fieldWeight in 124, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=124)
    0.078419685 = sum of:
      0.0446891 = weight(_text_:access in 124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0446891 = score(doc=124,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = queryNorm
          0.26479906 = fieldWeight in 124, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=124)
      0.03373058 = weight(_text_:22 in 124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03373058 = score(doc=124,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 124, 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=124)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Cornell University Library (CUL) has developed a largely automated method for providing title-level catalog access to electronic journals made available through aggregator packages. CUL's technique for automated e-journal record creation and maintenance relies largely on the conversion of externally supplied metadata into streamlined, abbreviated-level MARC records. Unlike the Cooperative Online Serials Cataloging Program's recently implemented aggregator-neutral approach to e-journal cataloging, CUL's method involves the creation of a separate bibliographic record for each version of an e-journal title in order to facilitate automated record maintenance. An indexed local field indicates the aggregation to which each title belongs and enables machine manipulation of all the records associated with a specific aggregation. Information encoded in another locally defined field facilitates the identification of all of the library's e-journal titles and allows for the automatic generation of a Web-based title list of e-journals. CUL's approach to providing title-level catalog access to its e-journal aggregations involves a number of tradeoffs in which some elements of traditional bibliographic description (such as subject headings and linking fields) are sacrificed in the interest of timeliness and affordability. URLs (Uniform Resource Locators) and holdings information are updated on a regular basis by use of automated methods that save on staff costs.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  15. Wisser, K.M.; O'Brien Roper, J.: Maximizing metadata : exploring the EAD-MARC relationship (2003) 0.07 
    0.06893965 = product of:
  0.1378793 = sum of:
    0.05945961 = weight(_text_:description in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05945961 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.25684384 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
    0.078419685 = sum of:
      0.0446891 = weight(_text_:access in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0446891 = score(doc=154,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = queryNorm
          0.26479906 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
      0.03373058 = weight(_text_:22 in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03373058 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 154, 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=154)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Encoded Archival Description (EAD) has provided a new way to approach manuscript and archival collection representation. A review of previous representational practices and problems highlights the benefits of using EAD. This new approach should be considered a partner rather than an adversary in the access providing process. Technological capabilities now allow for multiple metadata schemas to be employed in the creation of the finding aid. Crosswalks allow for MARC records to be generated from the detailed encoding of an EAD finding aid. In the process of creating these crosswalks and detailed encoding, EAD has generated more changes in traditional processes and procedures than originally imagined. The North Carolina State University (NCSU) Libraries sought to test the process of crosswalking EAD to MARC, investigating how this process used technology as well as changed physical procedures. By creating a complex and indepth EAD template for finding aids, with accompanying related encoding analogs embedded within the element structure, MARC records were generated that required minor editing and revision for inclusion in the NCSU Libraries OPAC. The creation of this bridge between EAD and MARC has stimulated theoretical discussions about the role of collaboration, technology, and expertise in the ongoing struggle to maximize access to our collections. While this study is a only a first attempt at harnessing this potential, a presentation of the tensions, struggles, and successes provides illumination to some of the larger issues facing special collections today.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  16. Desconnets, J.-C.; Chahdi, H.; Mougenot, I.: Application profile for earth observation images (2014) 0.07 
    0.065635264 = product of:
  0.13127053 = sum of:
    0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 1573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08324346 = score(doc=1573,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 1573, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1573)
    0.048027072 = weight(_text_:26 in 1573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048027072 = score(doc=1573,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.27312735 = fieldWeight in 1573, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1573)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Based on the concept of an application profile as proposed by the Dublin Core initiative, the work presented in this manuscript attempts to propose an application profile for the Earth Observation images. This approach aims to provide an open and extensible model facilitating the sharing and management of distributed images within decentralized architectures. It is intended to eventually cover the needs of discovery, localization, consulting, preservation and processing of data for decision support. We are using the Singapore framework recommendations to build the application profile. A particular focus on the formalization and representation of Description Set Profile (DSP) in RDF is proposed.
    Date
    19.12.2014 19:26:51
  17. Banerjee, K.: Describing electronic documents in the online catalog : current issues (1997) 0.06 
    0.06385989 = product of:
  0.12771977 = sum of:
    0.10090631 = weight(_text_:description in 1439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10090631 = score(doc=1439,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.43587846 = fieldWeight in 1439, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1439)
    0.026813459 = product of:
      0.053626917 = sum of:
        0.053626917 = weight(_text_:access in 1439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053626917 = score(doc=1439,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.31775886 = fieldWeight in 1439, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1439)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The relationship between library catalogues and electronic resources differs from that between catalogues and physical materials, particularly with regard to cataloguing rules, which were originally designed to help users of card catalogues to find physical works on library shelves. However, these rules apply awkwardly to electronic resources because functionally different electronic works raise special cataloguinf issues. Discusses the problems of describing remote electronic resources in online catalogues with particular reference to the InterCat project: a nationwide experiment to create a database of Internet resources in MARC format, containing description, location and access information (including PURLs = Persitent URLs)). Concludes that descriptive information helps the user identify the works needed, but that it is practical to provide only minimal desriptive information for remote electronic resources in the catalogue record. To a limited extent, the access lost from reduced description can be replaced with new cataloguing techniques designed to stabilize the catalogue record
  18. Rogers, D.: Cataloguing Internet resources : the evolution of the Dublin Core metadata set (1997) 0.06 
    0.061059922 = product of:
  0.122119844 = sum of:
    0.09513538 = weight(_text_:description in 903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09513538 = score(doc=903,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.41095015 = fieldWeight in 903, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=903)
    0.026984464 = product of:
      0.05396893 = sum of:
        0.05396893 = weight(_text_:22 in 903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05396893 = score(doc=903,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = 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(2/4)
    Abstract
    Recently the view has developed that electronic resources require the same level of cataloguing as the physical resources found in libraries, with the effect that a number of guidelines for cataloguing Internet resources have appeared. Describes one such standard for resource description, the Dublin Core metadata set, the ongoing refinement of the metadata elements and the application of the Dublin Core metadata set
    Source
    Cataloguing Australia. 23(1997) nos.1/2, S.17-22
  19. Baca, M.: Practical issues in applying metadata schemas and controlled vocabularies to cultural heritage information (2003) 0.06 
    0.057262912 = product of:
  0.114525825 = sum of:
    0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 5505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08324346 = score(doc=5505,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 5505, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5505)
    0.03128237 = product of:
      0.06256474 = sum of:
        0.06256474 = weight(_text_:access in 5505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06256474 = score(doc=5505,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.3707187 = fieldWeight in 5505, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5505)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Gives an overview of descriptive metadata schemas for art and architecture, including Categories for the Description of Works of Art, Object ID, and the VRA Core Categories. It also focuses on the menu of controlled vocabularies and classification systems needed to populate these metadata schemas such as the Art & Architecture Thesaurus, ICONCLASS, and others. Addresses the development of local authority files and thesauri to enhance end-user access, and metadata mapping and crosswalks as a means of providing integrated access to diverse information resources.
  20. Park, J.-r.; Tosaka, Y.; Lu, C.: Locally added homegrown metadata semantics : issues and implications 0.06 
    0.056258798 = product of:
  0.112517595 = sum of:
    0.071351536 = weight(_text_:description in 3543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071351536 = score(doc=3543,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.3082126 = fieldWeight in 3543, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3543)
    0.04116606 = weight(_text_:26 in 3543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04116606 = score(doc=3543,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 3543, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3543)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Using the data collected from a nationwide study drawn from the community of cataloging and metadata professionals, this study aims to assess the current state of locally added metadata elements used across digital repositories. Addition of locally created metadata elements is a fairly common practice adopted by over one-third of the survey participants. Homegrown elements for descriptive metadata comprising local notes and description, local personal and place names, and local subjects are added most frequently, followed by administrative, technical, and preservation metadata. The major reason for extending metadata is to accommodate the perceived needs of local collections and their users. Yet, there are currently few open mechanisms for finding and sharing documented information about such localized metadata practices.
    Source
    Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO conference, Rome, 23-26 February 2010, ed. Claudio Gnoli, Indeks, Frankfurt M

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 232
  • el 40
  • m 15
  • s 10
  • n 3
  • b 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications