Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.004767334 = product of:
  0.019069336 = sum of:
    0.019069336 = product of:
      0.05720801 = sum of:
        0.05720801 = weight(_text_:language in 2164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05720801 = score(doc=2164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042049456 = queryNorm
            0.34677336 = fieldWeight in 2164, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2164)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The paper discusses practical methods of apply DDC to digital library services arising from recent technical developments. These include the use of DDC summaries to create hierarchical browsing and tag cloud interfaces, the utility of DDC as a switching language between different subject heading and classification schemes, and the development of terminology servers for interoperability with digital libraries. The focus is on services based in Europe.

0.0041714176 = product of:
  0.01668567 = sum of:
    0.01668567 = product of:
      0.05005701 = sum of:
        0.05005701 = weight(_text_:language in 8344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05005701 = score(doc=8344,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042049456 = queryNorm
            0.30342668 = fieldWeight in 8344, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8344)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Paper presented at the Library Association 'Under 1 umbrella 2' Conference, Manchester, Jul 93. Computers are good at flexible data storage and distribution, data manipulation and transfromation, and rules. These abilities give rise to a couple areas of general functionality which are of use to cataloguers: integration of cataloguing tools, and intelligent assistance. Cataloguers are good at suggesting structures for organizing and managing information in a consistent way, understanding the problems of human language and providing useful interfaces between the general enquirer and the answer. Discusses the concept of virtual reality and what it can do for the user but warns that it cannot be effectively implemented without the appropriate combination of information technology and information management skills

0.0033710147 = product of:
  0.013484059 = sum of:
    0.013484059 = product of:
      0.040452175 = sum of:
        0.040452175 = weight(_text_:language in 4336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040452175 = score(doc=4336,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042049456 = queryNorm
            0.2452058 = fieldWeight in 4336, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4336)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The publication of library legacy includes publication of structuring vocabularies such as thesauri, classifications, subject headings. Different sources use different vocabularies, different in structure, width, depth and scope, and languages. Federated access to distributed data collections is currently possible if they rely on the same vocabularies. Mapping techniques and standards supporting them (such as SKOS mapping properties, OWL sameAs and equivalentClass) are still largely experimental, even in the linked data land. Libraries use a variety of controlled subject vocabulary and classification schemes to index items in their collections. Although most collections will employ only a single scheme, different schemes may be chosen to index different collections within a library or in separate libraries; schemes are chosen on the basis of language, subject focus (general or specific), granularity (specificity), user expectation, and availability and support (cost, currency, completeness, tools). For example, a typical academic library will operate separate metadata systems for the library's main collections, special collections (e.g. manuscripts, archives, audiovisual), digital collections, and one or more institutional repositories for teaching and research output; each of these systems may employ a different subject vocabulary, with little or no interoperability between terms and concepts. Users expect to have a single point-of-search in resource discovery services focussed on their local institutional collections. Librarians have to use complex and expensive resource discovery platforms to meet user expectations. Library communities continue to develop resource discovery services for consortia with a geographical, subject, sector (public, academic, school, special libraries), and/or domain (libraries, archives, museums) focus. Services are based on distributed searching (e.g. via Z39.50) or metadata aggregations (e.g. OCLC's WorldCat and OAISter). As a result, the number of different subject schemes encountered in such services is increasing. Trans-national consortia (e.g. Europeana) add to the complexity of the environment by including subject vocabularies in multiple languages. Users expect single point-of-search in consortial resource discovery service involving multiple organisations and large-scale metadata aggregations. Users also expect to be able to search for subjects using their own language and terms in an unambiguous, contextualised manner.

0.0033534872 = product of:
  0.013413949 = sum of:
    0.013413949 = product of:
      0.040241845 = sum of:
        0.040241845 = weight(_text_:29 in 1928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040241845 = score(doc=1928,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14791684 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042049456 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1928, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1928)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

29. 5.2015 10:50:02

0.002979584 = product of:
  0.011918336 = sum of:
    0.011918336 = product of:
      0.03575501 = sum of:
        0.03575501 = weight(_text_:language in 651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03575501 = score(doc=651,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042049456 = queryNorm
            0.21673335 = fieldWeight in 651, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=651)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper describes recent work on registering Resource Description Framework (RDF) versions of the entities and relationships from the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD) models developed by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). FRBR was developed several years before FRAD, and is under-developed in areas which FRAD was expected to cover; FRAD therefore makes significance reference to FRBR. Similarly, FRAD leaves a full treatment of subject authority data to the ongoing development of Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) which was finalised during 2010. Although the FRBR Review Group is charged with consolidating all three models in due course, the RDF versions of FRBR, FRAD, and FRSAD are being created in separate namespaces, with a separate Web Ontology Language (OWL) ontology to connect the three models. The paper discusses interoperability issues arising from this work. Such issues include class definitions and sub-classes, reciprocal properties, and disjoint classes and properties. The paper discusses similar work on the International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD), also maintained by IFLA, and related issues arising from the RDF representation of the metadata element set of RDA: resource description and access, which is based on the FRBR and FRAD models. The work is ongoing, and the paper updates the original conference presentation to the end of October 2010.

0.002383667 = product of:
  0.009534668 = sum of:
    0.009534668 = product of:
      0.028604005 = sum of:
        0.028604005 = weight(_text_:language in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028604005 = score(doc=3965,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042049456 = queryNorm
            0.17338668 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper describes recent initiatives to make standard library metadata models and structures available to the Semantic Web, including IFLA standards such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), and International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) along with the infrastructure that supports them. The FRBR Review Group is currently developing representations of FRAD and the entityrelationship model of FRBR in resource description framework (RDF) applications, using a combination of RDF, RDF Schema (RDFS), Simple Knowledge Organisation System (SKOS) and Web Ontology Language (OWL), cross-relating both models where appropriate. The ISBD/XML Task Group is investigating the representation of ISBD in RDF. The IFLA Namespaces project is developing an administrative and technical infrastructure to support such initiatives and encourage uptake of standards by other agencies. The paper describes similar initiatives with related external standards such as RDA - resource description and access, REICAT (the new Italian cataloguing rules) and CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM). The DCMI RDA Task Group is working with the Joint Steering Committee for RDA to develop Semantic Web representations of RDA structural elements, which are aligned with FRBR and FRAD, and controlled metadata content vocabularies. REICAT is also based on FRBR, and an object-oriented version of FRBR has been integrated with CRM, which itself has an RDF representation. CRM was initially based on the metadata needs of the museum community, and is now seeking extension to the archives community with the eventual aim of developing a model common to the main cultural information domains of archives, libraries and museums. The Vocabulary Mapping Framework (VMF) project has developed a Semantic Web tool to automatically generate mappings between metadata models from the information communities, including publishers. The tool is based on several standards, including CRM, FRAD, FRBR, MARC21 and RDA.

0.0023738004 = product of:
  0.0094952015 = sum of:
    0.0094952015 = product of:
      0.028485604 = sum of:
        0.028485604 = weight(_text_:22 in 4066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028485604 = score(doc=4066,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14725003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042049456 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4066, 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=4066)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

6. 1.2011 19:22:48