Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.021540914 = product of:
  0.086163655 = sum of:
    0.086163655 = weight(_text_:digital in 172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.086163655 = score(doc=172,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.4358155 = fieldWeight in 172, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=172)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper is a current assessment of the status of metadata creation and mapping between catalogerdefined field names and Dublin Core (DC) metadata elements across three digital image collections. The metadata elements that evince the most frequently inaccurate, inconsistent and incomplete DC metadata application are identified. As well, the most frequently occurring locally added metadata elements and associated pattern development are examined. For this, a randomly collected sample of 659 metadata item records from three digital image collections is analyzed. Implications and issues drawn from the evaluation of the current status of metadata creation and mapping are also discussed in relation to the issue of semantic interoperability of concept representation across digital image collections. The findings of the study suggest that conceptual ambiguities and semantic overlaps inherent among some DC metadata elements hinder semantic interoperability. The DC metadata scheme needs to be refined in order to disambiguate semantic relations of certain DC metadata elements that present semantic overlaps and conceptual ambiguities between element names and their corresponding definitions. The findings of the study also suggest that the development of mediation mechanisms such as concept networks that facilitate the metadata creation and mapping process are critically needed for enhancing metadata quality.

0.018278074 = product of:
  0.073112294 = sum of:
    0.073112294 = weight(_text_:digital in 2982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073112294 = score(doc=2982,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.36980176 = fieldWeight in 2982, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2982)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study presents the current state of research and practice on metadata quality through focus on the functional perspective on metadata quality, measurement and evaluation criteria coupled with mechanisms for improving metadata quality. Quality metadata reflect the degree to which the metadata in question perform the core bibliographic functions of discovery, use, provenance, currency, authentication and administration. The functional perspective is closely tied to the criteria and measurements used for assessing metadata quality. Accuracy, completeness and consistency are the most common criteria used in measuring metadata quality in literature. Guidelines embedded within a web form or template perform a valuable function in improving the quality of the metadata. Results of the study indicate a pressing need for the building of a common data model that is interoperable across digital repositories.

0.012924549 = product of:
  0.051698197 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 3543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=3543,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 3543, 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=3543)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Using the data collected from a nationwide study drawn from the community of cataloging and metadata professionals, this study aims to assess the current state of locally added metadata elements used across digital repositories. Addition of locally created metadata elements is a fairly common practice adopted by over one-third of the survey participants. Homegrown elements for descriptive metadata comprising local notes and description, local personal and place names, and local subjects are added most frequently, followed by administrative, technical, and preservation metadata. The major reason for extending metadata is to accommodate the perceived needs of local collections and their users. Yet, there are currently few open mechanisms for finding and sharing documented information about such localized metadata practices.

0.010770457 = product of:
  0.043081827 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=677,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Resource Description & Access (RDA) is intended to provide a flexible and extensible framework that can accommodate all types of content and media within rapidly evolving digital environments while also maintaining compatibility with the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2). The cataloging community is grappling with practical issues in navigating the transition from AACR2 to RDA; there is a definite need to evaluate major subject areas and broader themes in information organization under the new RDA paradigm. This article aims to accomplish this task through a thorough and critical review of the emerging RDA literature published from 2005 to 2011. The review mostly concerns key areas of difference between RDA and AACR2, the relationship of the new cataloging code to metadata standards, the impact on encoding standards such as Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), end user considerations, and practitioners' views on RDA implementation and training. Future research will require more in-depth studies of RDA's expected benefits and the manner in which the new cataloging code will improve resource retrieval and bibliographic control for users and catalogers alike over AACR2. The question as to how the cataloging community can best move forward to the post-AACR2/MARC environment must be addressed carefully so as to chart the future of bibliographic control in the evolving environment of information production, management, and use.