Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04853967 = product of:
  0.09707934 = sum of:
    0.07386994 = weight(_text_:digital in 1264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07386994 = score(doc=1264,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.37363398 = fieldWeight in 1264, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1264)
    0.02320939 = weight(_text_:library in 1264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02320939 = score(doc=1264,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17611115 = fieldWeight in 1264, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1264)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Defining metadata as "data about data" provokes more questions than it answers. What are the forms of the data and metadata? Can we be more specific about the manner in which the metadata is "about" the data? Are data and metadata distinguished only in the context of their relationship? Is the nature of the relationship between the datasets declarative or procedural? Can the metadata itself be described by other data? Over the past several years, we have been engaged in a number of efforts examining the role, format, composition, and architecture of metadata for networked resources. During this time, we have noticed the tendency to be led astray by comfortable, but somewhat inappropriate, models in the non-digital information environment. Rather than pursuing familiar models, there is the need for a new model that fully exploits the unique combination of computation and connectivity that characterizes the digital library. In this paper, we describe an extension of the Warwick Framework that we call Distributed Active Relationships (DARs). DARs provide a powerful model for representing data and metadata in digital library objects. They explicitly express the relationships between networked resources, and even allow those relationships to be dynamically downloadable and executable. The DAR model is based on the following principles, which our examination of the "data about data" definition has led us to regard as axiomatic: * There is no essential distinction between data and metadata. We can only make such a distinction in terms of a particular "about" relationship. As a result, what is metadata in the context of one "about" relationship may be data in another. * There is no single "about" relationship. There are many different and important relationships between data resources. * Resources can be related without regard for their location. The connectivity in networked information architectures makes it possible to have data in one repository describe data in another repository. * The computational power of the networked information environment makes it possible to consider active or dynamic relationships between data sets. This adds considerable power to the "data about data" definition. First, data about another data set may not physically exist, but may be automatically derived. Second, the "about" relationship may be an executable object -- in a sense interpretable metadata. As will be shown, this provides useful mechanisms for handling complex metadata problems such as rights management of digital objects. The remainder of this paper describes the development and consequences of the DAR model. Section 2 reviews the Warwick Framework, which is the basis for the model described in this paper. Section 3 examines the concept of the Warwick Framework Catalog, which provides a mechanism for expressing the relationships between the packages in a Warwick Framework container. With that background established, section 4 generalizes the Warwick Framework by removing the restriction that it only contains "metadata". This allows us to consider digital library objects that are aggregations of (possibly distributed) data sets, with the relationships between the data sets expressed using a Warwick Framework Catalog. Section 5 further extends the model by describing Distributed Active Relationships (DARs). DARs are the explicit relationships that have the potential to be executable, as alluded to earlier. Finally, section 6 describes two possible implementations of these concepts.

0.042092286 = product of:
  0.08418457 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 4771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=4771,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 4771, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4771)
    0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 4771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032486375 = score(doc=4771,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 4771, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4771)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The authors, who jointly serve as the Open Archives Initiative (OAI) executive, reflect an the three-year history of the OAI. Three years of technical work recently culminated in the release of a stabie production version 2 of the OAI Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH). This technical product, the work that led up to it, and the process that made it possible have attracted some favor from the digital library and information community. The paper explores a number of factors in the history of the OAI that the authors believe have contributed to this positive response. The factors include focus an a defined problem Statement, an operational model in which strong leadership is balanced with solicited participation, a healthy dose of community building and Support, and sensible technical decisions.

Source

Library hi tech. 21(2003) no.2, S.118-128

0.042092286 = product of:
  0.08418457 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 4780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=4780,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 4780, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4780)
    0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 4780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032486375 = score(doc=4780,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 4780, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4780)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper describes the use of the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting in the NSF's National Science Digital Library (NSDL). The protocol is used both as a method to ingest metadata into a central Metadata Repository and also as the means by which the repository exports metadata to service providers. The NSDL Search Service is used to illustrate this architecture. An early version of the Metadata Repository was an alpha test site for version 1 of the protocol and the production repository was a beta test site for version 2. This paper describes the implementation experience and early practical tests. Despite some teething troubles and the long-term difficulties of semantic compatibility, the overall conclusion is optimism that the Open Archive Initiative will be a successful part of the NSDL.

Source

Library hi tech. 21(2003) no.2, S.228-237

0.025849098 = product of:
  0.10339639 = sum of:
    0.10339639 = weight(_text_:digital in 1282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10339639 = score(doc=1282,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.52297866 = fieldWeight in 1282, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1282)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of digital information. 2(2002) no.2,

0.02199972 = product of:
  0.04399944 = sum of:
    0.030463453 = weight(_text_:digital in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030463453 = score(doc=1216,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.15408406 = fieldWeight in 1216, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1216)
    0.013535989 = weight(_text_:library in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013535989 = score(doc=1216,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.1027101 = fieldWeight in 1216, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1216)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.