Search (25 results, page 1 of 2)

0.080364354 = product of:
  0.16072871 = sum of:
    0.1421958 = weight(_text_:headings in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1421958 = score(doc=3602,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.6430178 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
    0.018532898 = product of:
      0.037065797 = sum of:
        0.037065797 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037065797 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3602, 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=3602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This study is an examination of the overlap between author-assigned keywords and cataloger-assigned Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) for a set of electronic theses and dissertations in Ohio State University's online catalog. The project is intended to contribute to the literature on the issue of keywords versus controlled vocabularies in the use of online catalogs and databases. Findings support previous studies' conclusions that both keywords and controlled vocabularies complement one another. Further, even in the presence of bibliographic record enhancements, such as abstracts or summaries, keywords and subject headings provided a significant number of unique terms that could affect the success of keyword searches. Implications for the maintenance of controlled vocabularies such as LCSH also are discussed in light of the patterns of matches and nonmatches found between the keywords and their corresponding subject headings.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.07083904 = product of:
  0.14167808 = sum of:
    0.12314518 = weight(_text_:headings in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12314518 = score(doc=3601,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.55686975 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
    0.018532898 = product of:
      0.037065797 = sum of:
        0.037065797 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037065797 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3601, 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=3601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Some members of the library community, including the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, have suggested that libraries should open up their catalogs to allow users to add descriptive tags to the bibliographic data in catalog records. The web site LibraryThing currently permits its members to add such user tags to its records for books and therefore provides a useful resource to contrast with library bibliographic records. A comparison between the LibraryThing tags for a group of books and the library-supplied subject headings for the same books shows that users and catalogers approach these descriptors very differently. Because of these differences, user tags can enhance subject access to library materials, but they cannot entirely replace controlled vocabularies such as the Library of Congress subject headings.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.04722603 = product of:
  0.09445206 = sum of:
    0.08209679 = weight(_text_:headings in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08209679 = score(doc=2666,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.37124652 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.012355265 = product of:
      0.02471053 = sum of:
        0.02471053 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02471053 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, 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=2666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.

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

0.047148023 = product of:
  0.094296046 = sum of:
    0.059248257 = weight(_text_:headings in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059248257 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
    0.03504779 = product of:
      0.07009558 = sum of:
        0.07009558 = weight(_text_:terminology in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07009558 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.29141995 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential of applying the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) as an established knowledge organization system (KOS) for enhancing social tagging, with the ultimate purpose of improving subject indexing and information retrieval. Design/methodology/approach - Over 11.000 Intute metadata records in politics were used. Totally, 28 politics students were each given four tasks, in which a total of 60 resources were tagged in two different configurations, one with uncontrolled social tags only and another with uncontrolled social tags as well as suggestions from a controlled vocabulary. The controlled vocabulary was DDC comprising also mappings from the Library of Congress Subject Headings. Findings - The results demonstrate the importance of controlled vocabulary suggestions for indexing and retrieval: to help produce ideas of which tags to use, to make it easier to find focus for the tagging, to ensure consistency and to increase the number of access points in retrieval. The value and usefulness of the suggestions proved to be dependent on the quality of the suggestions, both as to conceptual relevance to the user and as to appropriateness of the terminology. Originality/value - No research has investigated the enhancement of social tagging with suggestions from the DDC, an established KOS, in a user trial, comparing social tagging only and social tagging enhanced with the suggestions. This paper is a final reflection on all aspects of the study.

0.029624129 = product of:
  0.118496515 = sum of:
    0.118496515 = weight(_text_:headings in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.118496515 = score(doc=3707,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.5358482 = fieldWeight in 3707, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3707)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Social tagging or collaborative tagging has become a new trend in the organization, management, and discovery of digital information. The rapid growth of shared information mostly controlled by social tags poses a new challenge for social tag-based information organization and retrieval. A plausible approach for this challenge is linking social tags to a controlled vocabulary. As an introductory step for this approach, this study investigates ways of predicting relevant subject headings for resources from social tags assigned to the resources. The prediction of subject headings was measured by five different similarity measures: tf-idf, cosine-based similarity (CoS), Jaccard similarity (or Jaccard coefficient; JS), Mutual information (MI), and information radius (IRad). Their results were compared to those by professionals. The results show that a CoS measure based on top five social tags was most effective. Inclusions of more social tags only aggravate the performance. The performance of JS is comparable to the performance of CoS while tf-idf is comparable with up to 70% less than the best performance. MI and IRad have inferior performance compared to the other methods. This study demonstrates the application of the similarity measuring techniques to the prediction of correct Library of Congress subject headings.

0.025245935 = product of:
  0.10098374 = sum of:
    0.10098374 = sum of:
      0.07009558 = weight(_text_:terminology in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07009558 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045596033 = queryNorm
          0.29141995 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
      0.030888164 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030888164 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045596033 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2891, 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=2891)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine user tags that describe digitized archival collections in the field of humanities. A collection of 8,310 tags from a digital portal (Nineteenth-Century Electronic Scholarship, NINES) was analyzed to find out what attributes of primary historical resources users described with tags. Tags were categorized to identify which tags describe the content of the resource, the resource itself, and subjective aspects (e.g., usage or emotion). The study's findings revealed that over half were content-related; tags representing opinion, usage context, or self-reference, however, reflected only a small percentage. The study further found that terms related to genre or physical format of a resource were frequently used in describing primary archival resources. It was also learned that nontextual resources had lower numbers of content-related tags and higher numbers of document-related tags than textual resources and bibliographic materials; moreover, textual resources tended to have more user-context-related tags than other resources. These findings help explain users' tagging behavior and resource interpretation in primary resources in the humanities. Such information provided through tags helps information professionals decide to what extent indexing archival and cultural resources should be done for resource description and discovery, and understand users' terminology.

Date

21. 4.2016 11:23:22

0.025136905 = product of:
  0.10054762 = sum of:
    0.10054762 = weight(_text_:headings in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10054762 = score(doc=2492,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.45468226 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The internet in its Web 2.0 version has given an opportunity among users to be participative and the chance to enhance the existing system, which makes it dynamic and collaborative. The activity of social tagging among researchers to organize the digital resources is an interesting study among information professionals. The one way of organizing the resources for future retrieval through these user-generated terms makes an interesting analysis by comparing them with professionally created controlled vocabularies. Here in this study, an attempt has been made to compare Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) terms with LibraryThing social tags. In this comparative analysis, the results show that social tags can be used to enhance the metadata for information retrieval. But still, the uncontrolled nature of social tags is a concern and creates uncertainty among researchers.

0.020947421 = product of:
  0.083789684 = sum of:
    0.083789684 = weight(_text_:headings in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083789684 = score(doc=383,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.3789019 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Social tagging and controlled indexing both facilitate access to information resources. Given the increasing popularity of social tagging and the limitations of controlled indexing (primarily cost and scalability), it is reasonable to investigate to what degree social tagging could substitute for controlled indexing. In this study, we compared CiteULike tags to Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms for 231,388 citations indexed in MEDLINE. In addition to descriptive analyses of the data sets, we present a paper-by-paper analysis of tags and MeSH terms: the number of common annotations, Jaccard similarity, and coverage ratio. In the analysis, we apply three increasingly progressive levels of text processing, ranging from normalization to stemming, to reduce the impact of lexical differences. Annotations of our corpus consisted of over 76,968 distinct tags and 21,129 distinct MeSH terms. The top 20 tags/MeSH terms showed little direct overlap. On a paper-by-paper basis, the number of common annotations ranged from 0.29 to 0.5 and the Jaccard similarity from 2.12% to 3.3% using increased levels of text processing. At most, 77,834 citations (33.6%) shared at least one annotation. Our results show that CiteULike tags and MeSH terms are quite distinct lexically, reflecting different viewpoints/processes between social tagging and controlled indexing.

0.014812064 = product of:
  0.059248257 = sum of:
    0.059248257 = weight(_text_:headings in 4064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059248257 = score(doc=4064,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 4064, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4064)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The question of whether tags can be useful in the process of information retrieval was examined in this pilot study. Many tags are subject related and could work well as index terms or entry vocabulary; however, folksonomies also include relationships that are traditionally not included in controlled vocabularies including affective or time and task related tags and the user name of the tagger. Participants searched a social bookmarking tool, specialising in academic articles (CiteULike), and an online journal database (Pubmed) for articles relevant to a given information request. Screen capture software was used to collect participant actions and a semi-structured interview asked them to describe their search process. Preliminary results showed that participants did use tags in their search process, as a guide to searching and as hyperlinks to potentially useful articles. However, participants also used controlled vocabularies in the journal database to locate useful search terms and links to related articles supplied by Pubmed. Additionally, participants reported using user names of taggers and group names to help select resources by relevance. The inclusion of subjective and social information from the taggers is very different from the traditional objectivity of indexing and was reported as an asset by a number of participants. This study suggests that while users value social and subjective factors when searching, they also find utility in objective factors such as subject headings. Most importantly, users are interested in the ability of systems to connect them with related articles whether via subject access or other means.

0.014812064 = product of:
  0.059248257 = sum of:
    0.059248257 = weight(_text_:headings in 4117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059248257 = score(doc=4117,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 4117, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4117)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

To enable and guide effective metadata creation it is essential to understand the structure and patterns of the activities of the community around the photographs, resources used, and scale and quality of the socially created metadata relative to the metadata and knowledge already encoded in existing knowledge organization systems. This article presents an analysis of Flickr member discussions around the photographs of the Library of Congress photostream in Flickr. The article also reports on an analysis of the intrinsic and relational quality of the photostream tags relative to two knowledge organization systems: the Thesaurus for Graphic Materials (TGM) and the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). Thirty seven percent of the original tag set and 15.3% of the preprocessed set (after the removal of tags with fewer than three characters and URLs) were invalid or misspelled terms. Nouns, named entity terms, and complex terms constituted approximately 77% of the preprocessed set. More than a half of the photostream tags were not found in the TGM and LCSH, and more than a quarter of those terms were regular nouns and noun phrases. This suggests that these terms could be complimentary to more traditional methods of indexing using controlled vocabularies.

0.014812064 = product of:
  0.059248257 = sum of:
    0.059248257 = weight(_text_:headings in 1792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059248257 = score(doc=1792,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 1792, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1792)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of the research is to explore relationships between social tagging and key poststructuralist principles; to devise and construct an analytical framework through which key poststructuralist principles are converted into workable research questions and applied to analyse Librarything tags, and to assess the validity of performing such an analysis. The research hypothesis is that tagging represents an imperfect analogy for the poststructuralist project Design/methodology/approach Tags from LibraryThing and from a library OPAC were compared and constrasted with Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and publishers' descriptions. Research questions derived from poststructuralism, asked whether tags destabilise meaning, whether and how far the death of the author is expressed in tags, and whether tags deconstruct LCSH. Findings Tags can temporarily destabilise meaning by obfuscating the structure of a word. Meaning is destabilised, perhaps only momentarily, and then it is recreated; it might resemble the original meaning, or it may not, however any attempt to make tags useful or functional necessarily imposes some form of structure. The analysis indicates that in tagging, the author, if not dead, is ignored. Authoritative interpretations are not pervasively mimicked in the tags. In relation to LCSH, tagging decentres the dominant view, but neither exposes nor judges it. Nor does tagging achieve the final stage of the deconstructive process, showing the dominant view to be a constructed reality. Originality/value This is one of very few studies to have attempted a critical theoretical approach to social tagging. It offers a novel methodological approach to undertaking analysis based on poststructuralist theory.

0.010514337 = product of:
  0.042057347 = sum of:
    0.042057347 = product of:
      0.08411469 = sum of:
        0.08411469 = weight(_text_:terminology in 4557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08411469 = score(doc=4557,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.34970397 = fieldWeight in 4557, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4557)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper examines the context of online indexing from the viewpoint of three different groups: users, authors, and professional indexers. User tags, author keywords, and descriptors were collected from academic journal articles, which were both indexed in PubMed and tagged on CiteULike, and analysed. Descriptive statistics, informetric measures, and thesaural term comparison shows that there are important differences in the use of keywords among the three groups in addition to similarities, which can be used to enhance support for search and browse. While tags and author keywords were found that matched descriptors exactly, other terms which did not match but provided important expansion to the indexing lexicon were found. These additional terms could be used to enhance support for searching and browsing in article databases as well as to provide invaluable data for entry vocabulary and emergent terminology for regular updates to indexing systems. Additionally, the study suggests that tags support organisation by association to task, projects, and subject while making important connections to traditional systems which classify into subject categories.

0.009913011 = product of:
  0.039652046 = sum of:
    0.039652046 = product of:
      0.07930409 = sum of:
        0.07930409 = weight(_text_:terminology in 1185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07930409 = score(doc=1185,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.32970405 = fieldWeight in 1185, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1185)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

From their earliest encounters with the Web, museums have seen an opportunity to move beyond uni-directional communication into an environment that engages their users and reflects a multiplicity of perspectives. Shedding the "Unassailable Voice" (Walsh 1997) in favor of many "Points of View" (Sledge 1995) has challenged traditional museum approaches to the creation and delivery of content. Novel approaches are required in order to develop and sustain user engagement (Durbin 2004). New models of exhibit creation that democratize the curatorial functions of object selection and interpretation offer one way of opening up the museum (Coldicutt and Streten 2005). Another is to use the museum as a forum and focus for community story-telling (Howard, Pratty et al. 2005). Unfortunately, museum collections remain relatively inaccessible even when 'made available' through searchable on-line databases. Museum documentation seldom satisfies the on-line access needs of the broad public, both because it is written using professional terminology and because it may not address what is important to - or remembered by - the museum visitor. For example, an exhibition now on-line at The Metropolitan Museum of Art acknowledges "Coco" Chanel only in the brief, textual introduction (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005a). All of the images of her delightful fashion designs are attributed to "Gabrielle Chanel" (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005a). Interfaces that organize collections along axes of time or place - such of that of the Timeline of Art History (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005e) - often fail to match users' world-views, despite the care that went into their structuring or their significant pedagogical utility. Critically, as professionals working with art museums we realize that when cataloguers and curators describe works of art, they usually do not include the "subject" of the image itself. Simply put, we rarely answer the question "What is it a picture of?" Unfortunately, visitors will often remember a work based on its visual characteristics, only to find that Web-based searches for any of the things they recall do not produce results.

0.0061776326 = product of:
  0.02471053 = sum of:
    0.02471053 = product of:
      0.04942106 = sum of:
        0.04942106 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04942106 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2882, 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=2882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Pages

S.15-22

0.0054603075 = product of:
  0.02184123 = sum of:
    0.02184123 = product of:
      0.04368246 = sum of:
        0.04368246 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04368246 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.005405429 = product of:
  0.021621715 = sum of:
    0.021621715 = product of:
      0.04324343 = sum of:
        0.04324343 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04324343 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2889, 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=2889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

21. 6.2009 12:22:44

0.0046332246 = product of:
  0.018532898 = sum of:
    0.018532898 = product of:
      0.037065797 = sum of:
        0.037065797 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037065797 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3387, 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=3387)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 8.2010 12:35:22

0.0046332246 = product of:
  0.018532898 = sum of:
    0.018532898 = product of:
      0.037065797 = sum of:
        0.037065797 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037065797 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 164, 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=164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

¬Die Kraft der digitalen Unordnung: 32. Arbeits- und Fortbildungstagung der ASpB e. V., Sektion 5 im Deutschen Bibliotheksverband, 22.-25. September 2009 in der Universität Karlsruhe. Hrsg: Jadwiga Warmbrunn u.a

0.0038610206 = product of:
  0.015444082 = sum of:
    0.015444082 = product of:
      0.030888164 = sum of:
        0.030888164 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030888164 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.0038610206 = product of:
  0.015444082 = sum of:
    0.015444082 = product of:
      0.030888164 = sum of:
        0.030888164 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030888164 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2648, 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=2648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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