Search (74 results, page 1 of 4)

0.12953952 = product of:
  0.19430926 = sum of:
    0.093939 = weight(_text_:search in 4652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093939 = score(doc=4652,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.5376164 = fieldWeight in 4652, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4652)
    0.10037026 = product of:
      0.20074052 = sum of:
        0.20074052 = weight(_text_:engines in 4652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20074052 = score(doc=4652,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.7858995 = fieldWeight in 4652, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

0.11103386 = product of:
  0.16655079 = sum of:
    0.08051914 = weight(_text_:search in 7098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08051914 = score(doc=7098,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.460814 = fieldWeight in 7098, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7098)
    0.08603165 = product of:
      0.1720633 = sum of:
        0.1720633 = weight(_text_:engines in 7098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1720633 = score(doc=7098,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.67362815 = fieldWeight in 7098, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7098)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

0.091404855 = product of:
  0.13710728 = sum of:
    0.07501928 = weight(_text_:search in 5598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07501928 = score(doc=5598,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.4293381 = fieldWeight in 5598, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5598)
    0.062088005 = product of:
      0.12417601 = sum of:
        0.12417601 = weight(_text_:engines in 5598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12417601 = score(doc=5598,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.4861493 = fieldWeight in 5598, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5598)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to show how information in digital collections that have been catalogued using high-quality metadata can be retrieved more easily by users of search engines such as Google. Design/methodology/approach - The research and proposals described arose from an investigation into the observed phenomenon that pages from the Glasgow Digital Library (gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk) were regularly appearing near the top of Google search results shortly after publication, without any deliberate effort to achieve this. The reasons for this phenomenon are now well understood and are described in the second part of the paper. The first part provides context with a review of the impact of Google and a summary of recent initiatives by commercial publishers to make their content more visible to search engines. Findings - The literature research provides firm evidence of a trend amongst publishers to ensure that their online content is indexed by Google, in recognition of its popularity with internet users. The practical research demonstrates how search engine accessibility can be compatible with use of established collection management principles and high-quality metadata. Originality/value - The concept of data shoogling is introduced, involving some simple techniques for metadata optimisation. Details of its practical application are given, to illustrate how those working in academic, cultural and public-sector organisations could make their digital collections more easily accessible via search engines, without compromising any existing standards and practices.

0.06476976 = product of:
  0.09715463 = sum of:
    0.0469695 = weight(_text_:search in 4762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0469695 = score(doc=4762,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 4762, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4762)
    0.05018513 = product of:
      0.10037026 = sum of:
        0.10037026 = weight(_text_:engines in 4762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10037026 = score(doc=4762,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.39294976 = fieldWeight in 4762, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4762)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

For many years metadata has been recognised as a significant component of the digital information environment. Substantial work has gone into creating complex metadata schemes for describing digital content. Yet increasingly Web search engines, and Google in particular, are the primary means of discovering and selecting digital resources, although they make little use of metadata. This article considers how digital libraries can gain more value from their metadata by adapting it for Google users, while still following well-established principles and standards for cataloguing and digital preservation.

0.06476976 = product of:
  0.09715463 = sum of:
    0.0469695 = weight(_text_:search in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0469695 = score(doc=1155,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
    0.05018513 = product of:
      0.10037026 = sum of:
        0.10037026 = weight(_text_:engines in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10037026 = score(doc=1155,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.39294976 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper proposes a model for metadata crosswalks that associates three pieces of information: the crosswalk, the source metadata standard, and the target metadata standard, each of which may have a machine-readable encoding and human-readable description. The crosswalks are encoded as METS records that are made available to a repository for processing by search engines, OAI harvesters, and custom-designed Web services. The METS object brings together all of the information required to access and interpret crosswalks and represents a significant improvement over previously available formats. But it raises questions about how best to describe these complex objects and exposes gaps that must eventually be filled in by the digital library community.

0.05234187 = product of:
  0.0785128 = sum of:
    0.037957087 = weight(_text_:search in 2731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037957087 = score(doc=2731,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.21722981 = fieldWeight in 2731, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2731)
    0.04055571 = product of:
      0.08111142 = sum of:
        0.08111142 = weight(_text_:engines in 2731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08111142 = score(doc=2731,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.31755137 = fieldWeight in 2731, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2731)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

We propose an extension of a mediator architecture. This extension is oriented to ontology-driven data integration. In our architecture ontologies are not managed by an extemal component or service, but are integrated in the mediation layer. This approach implies rethinking the mediator design, but at the same time provides advantages from a database perspective. Some of these advantages include the application of optimization and evaluation techniques that use and combine information from all abstraction levels (physical schema, logical schema and semantic information defined by ontology). 1. Introduction Although the Web is probably the richest information repository in human history, users cannot specify what they want from it. Two major problems that arise in current search engines (Heflin, 2001) are: a) polysemy, when the same word is used with different meanings; b) synonymy, when two different words have the same meaning. Polysemy causes irrelevant information retrieval. On the other hand, synonymy produces lost of useful documents. The lack of a capability to understand the context of the words and the relationships among required terms, explains many of the lost and false results produced by search engines. The Semantic Web will bring structure to the meaningful content of Web pages, giving semantic relationships among terms and possibly avoiding the previous problems. Various proposals have appeared for meta-data representation and communication standards, and other services and tools that may eventually merge into the global Semantic Web (Berners-lee, 2001). Hopefully, in the next few years we will see the universal adoption of open standards for representation and sharing of meta-information. In this environment, software agents roaming from page to page can readily carry out sophisticated tasks for users (Berners-Lee, 2001). In this context, ontologies can be seen as metadata that represent semantic of data; providing a knowledge domain standard vocabulary, like DTDs and XML Schema do. If its pages were so structured, the Web could be seen as a heterogeneous collection of autonomous databases. This suggests that techniques developed in the Database area could be useful. Database research mainly deals with efficient storage and retrieval and with powerful query languages.

0.044291385 = product of:
  0.06643707 = sum of:
    0.041089755 = weight(_text_:search in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041089755 = score(doc=1216,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.23515818 = fieldWeight in 1216, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1216)
    0.02534732 = product of:
      0.05069464 = sum of:
        0.05069464 = weight(_text_:engines in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05069464 = score(doc=1216,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.19846961 = fieldWeight in 1216, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1216)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Reality is messy. Individuals perceive or define objects differently. Objects may change over time, morphing into new versions of their former selves or into things altogether different. A book can give rise to a translation, derivation, or edition, and these resulting objects are related in complex ways to each other and to the people and contexts in which they were created or transformed. Providing a normalized view of such a messy reality is a precondition for managing information. From the first library catalogs, through Melvil Dewey's Decimal Classification system in the nineteenth century, to today's MARC encoding of AACR2 cataloging rules, libraries have epitomized the process of what David Levy calls "order making", whereby catalogers impose a veneer of regularity on the natural disorder of the artifacts they encounter. The pre-digital library within which the Catalog and its standards evolved was relatively self-contained and controlled. Creating and maintaining catalog records was, and still is, the task of professionals. Today's Web, in contrast, has brought together a diversity of information management communities, with a variety of order-making standards, into what Stuart Weibel has called the Internet Commons. The sheer scale of this context has motivated a search for new ways to describe and index information. Second-generation search engines such as Google can yield astonishingly good search results, while tools such as ResearchIndex for automatic citation indexing and techniques for inferring "Web communities" from constellations of hyperlinks promise even better methods for focusing queries on information from authoritative sources. Such "automated digital libraries," according to Bill Arms, promise to radically reduce the cost of managing information. Alongside the development of such automated methods, there is increasing interest in metadata as a means of imposing pre-defined order on Web content. While the size and changeability of the Web makes professional cataloging impractical, a minimal amount of information ordering, such as that represented by the Dublin Core (DC), may vastly improve the quality of an automatic index at low cost; indeed, recent work suggests that some types of simple description may be generated with little or no human intervention.
Metadata is not monolithic. Instead, it is helpful to think of metadata as multiple views that can be projected from a single information object. Such views can form the basis of customized information services, such as search engines. Multiple views -- different types of metadata associated with a Web resource -- can facilitate a "drill-down" search paradigm, whereby people start their searches at a high level and later narrow their focus using domain-specific search categories. In Figure 1, for example, Mona Lisa may be viewed from the perspective of non-specialized searchers, with categories that are valid across domains (who painted it and when?); in the context of a museum (when and how was it acquired?); in the geo-spatial context of a walking tour using mobile devices (where is it in the gallery?); and in a legal framework (who owns the rights to its reproduction?). Multiple descriptive views imply a modular approach to metadata. Modularity is the basis of metadata architectures such as the Resource Description Framework (RDF), which permit different communities of expertise to associate and maintain multiple metadata packages for Web resources. As noted elsewhere, static association of multiple metadata packages with resources is but one way of achieving modularity. Another method is to computationally derive order-making views customized to the current needs of a client. This paper examines the evolution and scope of the Dublin Core from this perspective of metadata modularization. Dublin Core began in 1995 with a specific goal and scope -- as an easy-to-create and maintain descriptive format to facilitate cross-domain resource discovery on the Web. Over the years, this goal of "simple metadata for coarse-granularity discovery" came to mix with another goal -- that of community and domain-specific resource description and its attendant complexity. A notion of "qualified Dublin Core" evolved whereby the model for simple resource discovery -- a set of simple metadata elements in a flat, document-centric model -- would form the basis of more complex descriptions by treating the values of its elements as entities with properties ("component elements") in their own right.

0.040462285 = product of:
  0.060693428 = sum of:
    0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04025957 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
    0.020433856 = product of:
      0.040867712 = sum of:
        0.040867712 = weight(_text_:22 in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040867712 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2556, 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=2556)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

First generation scholarly research on the Web lacked a firm system of authority control. Second generation Web research is beginning to model subject access with library science principles of bibliographic control and cataloguing. Harnessing the Web and organising the intellectual content with standards and controlled vocabulary provides precise search and retrieval capability, increasing relevance and efficient use of technology. Dublin Core metadata standards permit a full evaluation and cataloguing of Web resources appropriate to highly specific research needs and discovery. Current research points to a type of structure based on a system of faceted classification. This system allows the semantic and syntactic relationships to be defined. Controlled vocabulary, such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings, can be assigned, not in a hierarchical structure, but rather as descriptive facets of relating concepts. Web design features such as this are adding value to discovery and filtering out data that lack authority. The system design allows for scalability and extensibility, two technical features that are integral to future development of the digital library and resource discovery.

Date

30.12.2008 18:22:46

0.040462285 = product of:
  0.060693428 = sum of:
    0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04025957 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
    0.020433856 = product of:
      0.040867712 = sum of:
        0.040867712 = weight(_text_:22 in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040867712 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2623, 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=2623)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Contemporary retrieval systems, which search across collections, usually ignore collection-level metadata. Alternative approaches, exploiting collection-level information, will require an understanding of the various kinds of relationships that can obtain between collection-level and item-level metadata. This paper outlines the problem and describes a project that is developing a logic-based framework for classifying collection/item metadata relationships. This framework will support (i) metadata specification developers defining metadata elements, (ii) metadata creators describing objects, and (iii) system designers implementing systems that take advantage of collection-level metadata. We present three examples of collection/item metadata relationship categories, attribute/value-propagation, value-propagation, and value-constraint and show that even in these simple cases a precise formulation requires modal notions in addition to first-order logic. These formulations are related to recent work in information retrieval and ontology evaluation.

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

0.037011288 = product of:
  0.05551693 = sum of:
    0.026839713 = weight(_text_:search in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026839713 = score(doc=3197,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.15360467 = fieldWeight in 3197, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3197)
    0.028677218 = product of:
      0.057354435 = sum of:
        0.057354435 = weight(_text_:engines in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057354435 = score(doc=3197,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.22454272 = fieldWeight in 3197, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3197)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Footnote

Rez.: JASIST 56(2005) no.13, S.1264 (W. Koehler: "Priscilla Caplan provides us with a sweeping but very welcome survey of the various approaches to metadata in practice or proposed in libraries and archives today. One of the key strengths of the book and paradoxically one of its key weaknesses is that the work is descriptive in nature. While relationships between one system and another may be noted, no general conclusions of a practical or theoretical nature are drawn of the relative merits of one metadata or metametadata scheure as against another. That said, let us remember that this is an American Library Association publication, published as a descriptive resource. Caplan does very well what she sets out to do. The work is divided into two parts: "Principles and Practice" and "Metadata Schemes," and is further subdivided into eighteen chapters. The book begins with short yet more than adequate chapters defining terms, vocabularies, and concepts. It discusses interoperability and the various levels of quality among systems. Perhaps Chapter 5, "Metadata and the Web" is the weakest chapter of the work. There is a brief discussion of how search engines work and some of the more recent initiatives (e.g., the Semantic Web) to develop better retrieval agents. The chapter is weck not in its description but in what it fails to discuss. The second section, "Metadata Schemes," which encompasses chapters six through eighteen, is particularly rich. Thirteen different metadata or metametadata schema are described to provide the interested librarian with a better than adequate introduction to the purpose, application, and operability of each metadata scheme. These are: library cataloging (chiefly MARC), TEI, Dublin Core, Archival Description and EAD, Art and Architecture, GILS, Education, ONIX, Geospatial, Data Documentation Initiative, Administrative Metadata, Structural Metadata, and Rights Metadata. The last three chapters introduce concepts heretofore "foreign" to the realm of the catalog or metadata. Descriptive metadata was . . . intended to help in finding, discovering, and identifying an information resource." (p. 151) Administrative metadata is an aid to ". . . the owners or caretakers of the resource." Structural metadata describe the relationships of data elements. Rights metadata describe (or as Caplan points out, may describe, as definition is still as yet ambiguous) end user rights to use and reproduce material in digital format. Keeping in mind that the work is intended for the general practitioner librarian, the book has a particularly useful glossary and index. Caplan also provides useful suggestions for additional reading at the end of each chapter. 1 intend to adopt Metadata Fundamentals for All Librarians when next I teach a digital cataloging course. Caplan's book provides an excellent introduction to the basic concepts. It is, however, not a "cookbook" nor a guidebook into the complexities of the application of any metadata scheme."

0.03371857 = product of:
  0.050577857 = sum of:
    0.03354964 = weight(_text_:search in 2624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03354964 = score(doc=2624,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 2624, 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=2624)
    0.017028214 = product of:
      0.03405643 = sum of:
        0.03405643 = weight(_text_:22 in 2624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03405643 = score(doc=2624,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2624, 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=2624)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper describes the information properties of museum specimen labels and machine learning tools to automatically extract Darwin Core (DwC) and other metadata from these labels processed through Optical Character Recognition (OCR). The DwC is a metadata profile describing the core set of access points for search and retrieval of natural history collections and observation databases. Using the HERBIS Learning System (HLS) we extract 74 independent elements from these labels. The automated text extraction tools are provided as a web service so that users can reference digital images of specimens and receive back an extended Darwin Core XML representation of the content of the label. This automated extraction task is made more difficult by the high variability of museum label formats, OCR errors and the open class nature of some elements. In this paper we introduce our overall system architecture, and variability robust solutions including, the application of Hidden Markov and Naïve Bayes machine learning models, data cleaning, use of field element identifiers, and specialist learning models. The techniques developed here could be adapted to any metadata extraction situation with noisy text and weakly ordered elements.

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

0.023603 = product of:
  0.0354045 = sum of:
    0.02348475 = weight(_text_:search in 2668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02348475 = score(doc=2668,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.1344041 = fieldWeight in 2668, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2668)
    0.01191975 = product of:
      0.0238395 = sum of:
        0.0238395 = weight(_text_:22 in 2668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0238395 = score(doc=2668,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2668, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2668)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

Carol Jean Godby, Devon Smith, Eric Childress: Encoding Application Profiles in a Computational Model of the Crosswalk. - Maria Elisabete Catarino, Ana Alice Baptista: Relating Folksonomies with Dublin Core. - Ed Summers, Antoine Isaac, Clay Redding, Dan Krech: LCSH, SKOS and Linked Data. - Xia Lin, Jiexun Li, Xiaohua Zhou: Theme Creation for Digital Collections. - Boris Lauser, Gudrun Johannsen, Caterina Caracciolo, Willem Robert van Hage, Johannes Keizer, Philipp Mayr: Comparing Human and Automatic Thesaurus Mapping Approaches in the Agricultural Domain. - P. Bryan Heidorn, Qin Wei: Automatic Metadata Extraction From Museum Specimen Labels. - Stuart Allen Sutton, Diny Golder: Achievement Standards Network (ASN): An Application Profile for Mapping K-12 Educational Resources to Achievement Standards. - Allen H. Renear, Karen M. Wickett, Richard J. Urban, David Dubin, Sarah L. Shreeves: Collection/Item Metadata Relationships. - Seth van Hooland, Yves Bontemps, Seth Kaufman: Answering the Call for more Accountability: Applying Data Profiling to Museum Metadata. - Thomas Margaritopoulos, Merkourios Margaritopoulos, Ioannis Mavridis, Athanasios Manitsaris: A Conceptual Framework for Metadata Quality Assessment. - Miao Chen, Xiaozhong Liu, Jian Qin: Semantic Relation Extraction from Socially-Generated Tags: A Methodology for Metadata Generation. - Hak Lae Kim, Simon Scerri, John G. Breslin, Stefan Decker, Hong Gee Kim: The State of the Art in Tag Ontologies: A Semantic Model for Tagging and Folksonomies. - Martin Malmsten: Making a Library Catalogue Part of the Semantic Web. - Philipp Mayr, Vivien Petras: Building a Terminology Network for Search: The KoMoHe Project. - Michael Panzer: Cool URIs for the DDC: Towards Web-scale Accessibility of a Large Classification System. - Barbara Levergood, Stefan Farrenkopf, Elisabeth Frasnelli: The Specification of the Language of the Field and Interoperability: Cross-language Access to Catalogues and Online Libraries (CACAO)

0.019369897 = product of:
  0.058109686 = sum of:
    0.058109686 = weight(_text_:search in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058109686 = score(doc=824,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.33256388 = fieldWeight in 824, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=824)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We discuss the issues of resolving the information-retrieval problem in large digital collections through the identification and use of document genres. Explicit identification of genre seems particularly important for such collections because any search usually retrieves documents with a diversity of genres that are undifferentiated by obvious clues as to their identity. Also, because most genres are characterized by both form and purpose, identifying the genre of a document provides information as to the document's purpose and its fit to the user's situation, which can be otherwise difficult to assess. We begin by outlining the possible role of genre identification in the information-retrieval process. Our assumption is that genre identification would enhance searching, first because we know that topic alone is not enough to define an information problem and, second, because search results containing genre information would be more easily understandable. Next, we discuss how information professionals have traditionally tackled the issues of representing genre in settings where topical representation is the norm. Finally, we address the issues of studying the efficacy of identifying genre in large digital collections. Because genre is often an implicit notion, studying it in a systematic way presents many problems. We outline a research protocol that would provide guidance for identifying Web document genres, for observing how genre is used in searching and evaluating search results, and finally for representing and visualizing genres.

0.01816343 = product of:
  0.054490287 = sum of:
    0.054490287 = product of:
      0.10898057 = sum of:
        0.10898057 = weight(_text_:22 in 4899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10898057 = score(doc=4899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4899, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4899)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

16. 7.2000 20:58:22

0.01816343 = product of:
  0.054490287 = sum of:
    0.054490287 = product of:
      0.10898057 = sum of:
        0.10898057 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10898057 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

0.017893143 = product of:
  0.053679425 = sum of:
    0.053679425 = weight(_text_:search in 4459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053679425 = score(doc=4459,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.30720934 = fieldWeight in 4459, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4459)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Wissenschaftler nutzen Dublin Core Metadaten im Internet einerseits zur besseren Verfügbarkeit ihrer Arbeitsergebnisse, andererseits zur besseren Darstellung ihrer Arbeitsgruppen, Lehrveranstaltungen und Forschungsprojekte. Die Metadaten erlauben ein qualitativ hochwertiges Retrieval auf diesem spezifischen Material. die Nutzung von Retrievalwerkzeugen und das Angebot von Indexen dieser Materialien, sowie die Bereitstellung von Metadaten wird seit einigen Jahren von den Wissenschaftlern selbst übernommen. Die dazu verwendeten technischen Methoden und Organisationsstrukturen werden exemplarisch am Mathematics PREprint Search System vorgestellt

0.017893143 = product of:
  0.053679425 = sum of:
    0.053679425 = weight(_text_:search in 4840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053679425 = score(doc=4840,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.30720934 = fieldWeight in 4840, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4840)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this talk we present a retrieval model based on social ontologies. More specifically, we utilize the Wikipedia category system in order to perform semantic searches. That is, textual input is used to build queries by means of which documents are retrieved which do not necessarily contain any query term but are semantically related to the input text by virtue of their content. We present a desktop which utilizes this search facility in a web-based environment - the so called eHumanities Desktop.

0.015893001 = product of:
  0.047679 = sum of:
    0.047679 = product of:
      0.095358 = sum of:
        0.095358 = weight(_text_:22 in 4407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095358 = score(doc=4407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4407, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

28. 3.2002 9:22:34

0.015893001 = product of:
  0.047679 = sum of:
    0.047679 = product of:
      0.095358 = sum of:
        0.095358 = weight(_text_:22 in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095358 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7196, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7196)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

0.015893001 = product of:
  0.047679 = sum of:
    0.047679 = product of:
      0.095358 = sum of:
        0.095358 = weight(_text_:22 in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095358 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2841, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2841)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2