Search (146 results, page 2 of 8)

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

0.040321656 = product of:
  0.12096497 = sum of:
    0.12096497 = weight(_text_:search in 2964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12096497 = score(doc=2964,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.69228697 = fieldWeight in 2964, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2964)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Although the technical, mathematical and linguistic principles of search date back to the early 1960s and enterprise search applications have been commercially available since the 1980s; it is only since the launch of Microsoft SharePoint 2010 and the integration of the Apache Lucene and Solr projects in 2010 that there has been a wider adoption of enterprise search applications. Surveys carried out over the last five years indicate that although enterprises accept that search applications are essential in locating information, there has not been any significant investment in search teams to support these applications. Where taxonomies, thesauri and metadata have been used to improve the search user interface and enhance the search experience, the indications are that levels of search satisfaction are significantly higher. The challenges faced by search managers in developing and maintaining these tools include a lack of published research on the use of these tools and difficulty in recruiting search team members with the requisite skills and experience. There would seem to be an important and immediate opportunity to bring together the research, knowledge organization and enterprise search communities to explore how good practice in the use of taxonomies, thesauri and metadata in enterprise search can be established, enhanced and promoted.

0.038739793 = product of:
  0.11621937 = sum of:
    0.11621937 = weight(_text_:search in 5281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11621937 = score(doc=5281,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.66512775 = fieldWeight in 5281, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5281)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose For digital libraries, it is useful to understand how users search in a collection. Investigating search patterns can help them to improve the user interface, collection management and search algorithms. However, search patterns may vary widely in different parts of a collection. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how to identify these search patterns within a well-curated historical newspaper collection using the existing metadata. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyzed search logs combined with metadata records describing the content of the collection, using this metadata to create subsets in the logs corresponding to different parts of the collection. Findings The study shows that faceted search is more prevalent than non-faceted search in terms of number of unique queries, time spent, clicks and downloads. Distinct search patterns are observed in different parts of the collection, corresponding to historical periods, geographical regions or subject matter. Originality/value First, this study provides deeper insights into search behavior at a fine granularity in a historical newspaper collection, by the inclusion of the metadata in the analysis. Second, it demonstrates how to use metadata categorization as a way to analyze distinct search patterns in a collection.

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

0.03238488 = product of:
  0.048577316 = sum of:
    0.02348475 = weight(_text_:search in 1257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02348475 = score(doc=1257,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.1344041 = fieldWeight in 1257, 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=1257)
    0.025092565 = product of:
      0.05018513 = sum of:
        0.05018513 = weight(_text_:engines in 1257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05018513 = score(doc=1257,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.19647488 = fieldWeight in 1257, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1257)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Over the past three years, the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative has achieved a broad international consensus on the semantics of a simple element set for describing electronic resources. Since the first workshop in March 1995, which was reported in the very first issue of D-Lib Magazine, Dublin Core has been the topic of perhaps a dozen articles here. Originally intended to be simple and intuitive enough for authors to tag Web pages without special training, Dublin Core is being adapted now for more specialized uses, from government information and legal deposit to museum informatics and electronic commerce. To meet such specialized requirements, Dublin Core can be customized with additional elements or qualifiers. However, these refinements can compromise interoperability across applications. There are tradeoffs between using specific terms that precisely meet local needs versus general terms that are understood more widely. We can better understand this inevitable tension between simplicity and complexity if we recognize that metadata is a form of human language. With Dublin Core, as with a natural language, people are inclined to stretch definitions, make general terms more specific, specific terms more general, misunderstand intended meanings, and coin new terms. One goal of this paper, therefore, will be to examine the experience of some related ways to seek semantic interoperability through simplicity: planned languages, interlingua constructs, and pidgins. The problem of semantic interoperability is compounded when we consider Dublin Core in translation. All of the workshops, documents, mailing lists, user guides, and working group outputs of the Dublin Core Initiative have been in English. But in many countries and for many applications, people need a metadata standard in their own language. In principle, the broad elements of Dublin Core can be defined equally well in Bulgarian or Hindi. Since Dublin Core is a controlled standard, however, any parallel definitions need to be kept in sync as the standard evolves. Another goal of the paper, then, will be to define the conceptual and organizational problem of maintaining a metadata standard in multiple languages. In addition to a name and definition, which are meant for human consumption, each Dublin Core element has a label, or indexing token, meant for harvesting by search engines. For practical reasons, these machine-readable tokens are English-looking strings such as Creator and Subject (just as HTML tags are called HEAD, BODY, or TITLE). These tokens, which are shared by Dublin Cores in every language, ensure that metadata fields created in any particular language are indexed together across repositories. As symbols of underlying universal semantics, these tokens form the basis of semantic interoperability among the multiple Dublin Cores. As long as we limit ourselves to sharing these indexing tokens among exact translations of a simple set of fifteen broad elements, the definitions of which fit easily onto two pages, the problem of Dublin Core in multiple languages is straightforward. But nothing having to do with human language is ever so simple. Just as speakers of various languages must learn the language of Dublin Core in their own tongues, we must find the right words to talk about a metadata language that is expressable in many discipline-specific jargons and natural languages and that inevitably will evolve and change over time.

0.027117856 = product of:
  0.08135357 = sum of:
    0.08135357 = weight(_text_:search in 1624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08135357 = score(doc=1624,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.46558946 = fieldWeight in 1624, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1624)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Discusses a range of professional librarians' opinions on the urgent need either to adopt or replace the current cataloguing rules, a theme closely linked to the identity crisis facing libraries and librarians in the online electronic era. Topics examined include: Gorman and Oddy's views on restructuring AACR principles; the 13 metadata elements contained in the Dublin Core document (1995); catalogue search by known item; keyword search versus subject search; and the US Library of Congress's Program for cooperation cataloging

0.027117856 = product of:
  0.08135357 = sum of:
    0.08135357 = weight(_text_:search in 1887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08135357 = score(doc=1887,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.46558946 = fieldWeight in 1887, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1887)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article summarizes published documents on metadata provided by Google for books scanned as part of the Google Book Search (GBS) project and provides suggestions for improvement. The faulty, misleading, and confusing metadata in current Google records can pose potentially serious problems for users of GBS. Google admits that it took data, which proved to be inaccurate, from many sources and is attempting to correct errors. Some argue that metadata is not needed with keyword searching; but optical character recognition (OCR) errors, synonym control, and materials in foreign languages make reliable metadata a requirement for academic researchers. The authors recommend that users should be able to submit error reports to Google to correct faulty metadata.

Object

Google Book Search

0.025304725 = product of:
  0.075914174 = sum of:
    0.075914174 = weight(_text_:search in 543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.075914174 = score(doc=543,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.43445963 = fieldWeight in 543, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=543)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Discusses the development and implementation of models for indexing and searching information resources on the Internet. Examines briefly the results of a simple query on a number of existing search systems and discusses 2 proposed index metadata structures for indexing and supporting search and discovery: The Dublin Core Elements List and the Semantic Header. Presents an indexing and discovery system based on the Semantic Header

0.025006426 = product of:
  0.07501928 = sum of:
    0.07501928 = weight(_text_:search in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07501928 = score(doc=865,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.4293381 = fieldWeight in 865, 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=865)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - Many Web 2.0 services (including Library 2.0 catalogs) make use of folksonomies. The purpose of this paper is to cut off all tags in the long tail of a document-specific tag distribution. The remaining tags at the beginning of a tag distribution are considered power tags and form a new, additional search option in information retrieval systems. Design/methodology/approach - In a theoretical approach the paper discusses document-specific tag distributions (power law and inverse-logistic shape), the development of such distributions (Yule-Simon process and shuffling theory) and introduces search tags (besides the well-known index tags) as a possibility for generating tag distributions. Findings - Search tags are compatible with broad and narrow folksonomies and with all knowledge organization systems (e.g. classification systems and thesauri), while index tags are only applicable in broad folksonomies. Based on these findings, the paper presents a sketch of an algorithm for mining and processing power tags in information retrieval systems. Research limitations/implications - This conceptual approach is in need of empirical evaluation in a concrete retrieval system. Practical implications - Power tags are a new search option for retrieval systems to limit the amount of hits. Originality/value - The paper introduces power tags as a means for enhancing the precision of search results in information retrieval systems that apply folksonomies, e.g. catalogs in Library 2.0environments.

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)

0.023243874 = product of:
  0.06973162 = sum of:
    0.06973162 = weight(_text_:search in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06973162 = score(doc=453,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.39907667 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this paper, we present a case study of how well subject metadata (comprising headings from an international classification scheme) has been deployed in a national data catalogue, and how often data seekers use subject metadata when searching for data. Through an analysis of user search behaviour as recorded in search logs, we find evidence that users utilise the subject metadata for data discovery. Since approximately half of the records ingested by the catalogue did not include subject metadata at the time of harvest, we experimented with automatic subject classification approaches in order to enrich these records and to provide additional support for user search and data discovery. Our results show that automatic methods work well for well represented categories of subject metadata, and these categories tend to have features that can distinguish themselves from the other categories. Our findings raise implications for data catalogue providers; they should invest more effort to enhance the quality of data records by providing an adequate description of these records for under-represented subject categories.

0.022141634 = product of:
  0.0664249 = sum of:
    0.0664249 = weight(_text_:search in 6863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0664249 = score(doc=6863,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.38015217 = fieldWeight in 6863, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6863)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

At present cataloguing of Internet resources are on 2 levels. At level 1, the description of resources is contained in local library catalogues, along with bibliographic surrogates for all other materials that the library access, based on AACR2/MARC systems. At level 2, Internet resources are organized independently of any library agency. These include separate catalogues of selected resources, subject browsing lists and robot-generated search tools, and focus exclusively on Internet resources. A 3rd level needs to be developed - a metacatalogue - whereby a user can identify specific library catalogues to include in a search query of other Internet databases

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.

0.019369897 = product of:
  0.058109686 = sum of:
    0.058109686 = weight(_text_:search in 3667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058109686 = score(doc=3667,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.33256388 = fieldWeight in 3667, 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=3667)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Descriptive metadata play a key role in finding relevant search results in large amounts of unstructured data. However, current scientific audiovisual media are provided with little metadata, which makes them hard to find, let alone individual sequences. In this paper, the TIB / AV-Portal is presented as a use case where methods concerning the automatic generation of metadata, a semantic search and cross-lingual retrieval (German/English) have already been applied. These methods result in a better discoverability of the scientific audiovisual media hosted in the portal. Text, speech, and image content of the video are automatically indexed by specialised GND (Gemeinsame Normdatei) subject headings. A semantic search is established based on properties of the GND ontology. The cross-lingual retrieval uses English 'translations' that were derived by an ontology mapping (DBpedia i. a.). Further ways of increasing the discoverability and reuse of the metadata are publishing them as Linked Open Data and interlinking them with other data sets.

0.019265227 = product of:
  0.057795677 = sum of:
    0.057795677 = product of:
      0.115591355 = sum of:
        0.115591355 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.115591355 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 5743, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5743)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

30. 3.2002 19:45:22

Source

Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.2, S.198-219

0.018978544 = product of:
  0.056935627 = sum of:
    0.056935627 = weight(_text_:search in 4053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056935627 = score(doc=4053,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.3258447 = fieldWeight in 4053, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4053)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Within a digital library, collections may range from an ad hoc set of objects that serve a temporary purpose to established library collections intended to persist through time. The objects in these collections vary widely, from library and data center holdings to pointers to real-world objects, such as geographic places, and the various metadata schemes that describe them. The key to integrated use of such a variety of collections in a digital library is collection metadata that represents the inherent and contextual characteristics of a collection. The Alexandria Digital Library (ADL) Project has designed and implemented collection metadata for several purposes: in XML form, the collection metadatada 'registers' the collection with the user interface client; in HTML form, it is used for user documentation; eventually, it will be used to describe the collection to network search agents; and it is used for internal collection management, including mapping the object metadata attributes to the common search parameters of the system

0.018978544 = product of:
  0.056935627 = sum of:
    0.056935627 = weight(_text_:search in 5442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056935627 = score(doc=5442,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.3258447 = fieldWeight in 5442, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5442)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Lehigh University Libraries has developed a new tool for querying WorldCat using the WorldCat Search API. The tool is a Google Sheet Add-on and is available now via the Google Sheets Add-ons menu under the name "MatchMarc." The add-on is easily customizable, with no knowledge of coding needed. The tool will return a single "best" OCLC record number, and its bibliographic information for a given ISBN or LCCN, allowing the user to set up and define "best." Because all of the information, the input, the criteria, and the results exist in the Google Sheets environment, efficient workflows can be developed from this flexible starting point. This article will discuss the development of the add-on, how it works, and future plans for development.

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