Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011070817 = product of:
  0.03321245 = sum of:
    0.03321245 = weight(_text_:search in 3821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03321245 = score(doc=3821,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.19007608 = fieldWeight in 3821, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3821)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

"1. The EU projeet Renardus Renardus is a project funded by the European Commission as part of the Information Society Technologies (IST) programme, part of the European Union's 5th Framework Programme. Partners in Renardus include national libraries, research centres and subject gateway services from Denmark, Finland, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and the UK, co-ordinated by the National Library of the Netherlands. The project aims to develop a Web-based service to enable searching and browsing across a range of distributed European-based information services designed for the academic and research communities - and in particular those services known as subject gateways. These gateways are services that provide access to Internet resources. They tend to be selective with regard to the resources they give access to, and are usually based an the manual creation of descriptive metadata. Services typically provide users with both search and browse facilities, and offen offer hierarchical browse structures based an subject classification schemes (Koch & Day, 1997). Predecessor projects like the EU project DESIRE have already developed solutions for the description of individual resources and for automatic classification at the level of an individual subject gateway using established classification systems. Renardus intends to develop a service that can cross-search and cross-browse a number of distributed subject gateways through the use of a common metadata profile and by the mapping all locally-used classification schemes to a common scheme. A thorough review of existing data models (Becker, et al., 2000) was used as the basis for the agreement of a minimum set of Dublin Core-based metadata elements that could be utilised as a common data model. A comprehensive mapping effort from the individual gateways' metadata element sets and content encoding schemes to the common profile has taken place. This provides the infrastructure for interoperability between all participating databases and thus is the necessary prerequisite for cross-searching."

0.0055916067 = product of:
  0.01677482 = sum of:
    0.01677482 = weight(_text_:search in 1219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01677482 = score(doc=1219,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.09600292 = fieldWeight in 1219, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1219)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Funding from the UK Electronic Libraries (eLib) programme and the European Community's Fourth Framework programme assisted the initial emergence of information gateways (e.g., SOSIG, EEVL, OMNI in the UK, and EELS in Sweden). Other gateways have been developed by initiatives co-ordinated by national libraries (such as DutchESS in the Netherlands, and AVEL and EdNA in Australia) and by universities and research funding bodies (e.g., GEM in the US, the Finnish Virtual Library, and the German SSG-FI services). An account of the emergence of subject gateways since the mid-1990s by Dempsey gives an historical perspective -- informed by UK experience in particular -- and also considers the future development of subject gateways in relation to other services. When considering the development and future of gateways, it would be helpful to have a clear definition of the service offered by a so-called 'subject gateway'. Precise definitions of 'information gateways', 'subject gateways' and 'quality controlled subject gateways' have been debated elsewhere. Koch has reviewed definitions and suggested typologies that are useful, not least in showing the differences that exist between broadly similar services. Working definitions that we will use in this article are that a subject gateway provides a search service to high quality Web resources selected from a particular subject area, whereas information gateways have a wider criteria for selection of resources, e.g., a national approach. Inevitably in a rapidly changing international environment different people perceive different emphases in attempts to label services, the significant issue is that users, developers and designers can recognise and benefit from commonalties in approach.