Hider, P.: ¬A survey of the coverage and methodologies of schemas and vocabularies used to describe information resources (2015)
0.01
0.011183213 = product of:
0.03354964 = sum of:
0.03354964 = weight(_text_:search in 2195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03354964 = score(doc=2195,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 2195, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2195)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Riley's survey (2010) of metadata standards for cultural heritage collections represents a rare attempt to classify such standards, in this case according to their domain, community, function and purpose. This paper reports on a survey of metadata standards with particular functions, i.e. those of schemas and vocabularies, but that have been published online for any domain or community (and not just those of the cultural heritage sector). In total, 53 schemas and 328 vocabularies were identified as within scope, and were classified according to their subject coverage and the type of warrant used in their reported development, i.e. resource, expert or user warrant, or a combination of these types. There was found to be a general correlation between the coverage of the schemas and vocabularies. Areas of underrepresentation would appear to be the humanities and the fine arts, and, in the case of schemas, also law, engineering, manufacturing and sport. Schemas would appear to be constructed more by consulting experts and considering endusers' search behaviour; vocabularies, on the other hand, are developed more by considering the information resources themselves, or by combining a range of methods.
