Search (34 results, page 1 of 2)

0.07466953 = product of:
  0.14933906 = sum of:
    0.10339639 = weight(_text_:digital in 4366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10339639 = score(doc=4366,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.52297866 = fieldWeight in 4366, 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=4366)
    0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 4366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045942668 = score(doc=4366,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 4366, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4366)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Vortrag "One more step towards the European digital library: International Conference, Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, Frankfurt am Main 31 January - 1 February 2008.

0.072070494 = product of:
  0.14414099 = sum of:
    0.10339639 = weight(_text_:digital in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10339639 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.52297866 = fieldWeight in 6048, 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=6048)
    0.0407446 = product of:
      0.0814892 = sum of:
        0.0814892 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0814892 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.062224608 = product of:
  0.124449216 = sum of:
    0.086163655 = weight(_text_:digital in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.086163655 = score(doc=3764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.4358155 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
    0.03828556 = weight(_text_:library in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03828556 = score(doc=3764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Vortrag "One more step towards the European digital library: International Conference, Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, Frankfurt am Main 31 January - 1 February 2008. Vgl. auch: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/talks/08-frankfurt.pdf.

0.037770826 = product of:
  0.07554165 = sum of:
    0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 3968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045942668 = score(doc=3968,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 3968, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3968)
    0.029598987 = product of:
      0.059197973 = sum of:
        0.059197973 = weight(_text_:project in 3968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059197973 = score(doc=3968,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 3968, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3968)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The role of vocabularies is critical in the long overdue synergy between the Web and Library heritage. The Semantic Web should leverage existing vocabularies instead of reinventing them, but the specific features of library vocabularies make them more or less portable to the Semantic Web. Based on preliminary results in the framework of the TELplus project, we suggest guidelines for needed evolutions in order to make vocabularies usable and efficient in the Semantic Web realm, assess choices made so far by large libraries to publish vocabularies conformant to standards and good practices, and review how Semantic Web tools can help managing those vocabularies.

Content

Vortrag im Rahmen der Session 93. Cataloguing der WORLD LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CONGRESS: 76TH IFLA GENERAL CONFERENCE AND ASSEMBLY, 10-15 August 2010, Gothenburg, Sweden - 149. Information Technology, Cataloguing, Classification and Indexing with Knowledge Management

0.02802439 = product of:
  0.05604878 = sum of:
    0.042648837 = weight(_text_:digital in 5903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042648837 = score(doc=5903,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21571769 = fieldWeight in 5903, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5903)
    0.013399946 = weight(_text_:library in 5903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013399946 = score(doc=5903,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.10167781 = fieldWeight in 5903, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5903)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

RDF - the Resource Description Framework - is a foundation for processing metadata; it provides interoperability between applications that exchange machine-understandable information on the Web. RDF emphasizes facilities to enable automated processing of Web resources. RDF metadata can be used in a variety of application areas; for example: in resource discovery to provide better search engine capabilities; in cataloging for describing the content and content relationships available at a particular Web site, page, or digital library; by intelligent software agents to facilitate knowledge sharing and exchange; in content rating; in describing collections of pages that represent a single logical "document"; for describing intellectual property rights of Web pages, and in many others. RDF with digital signatures will be key to building the "Web of Trust" for electronic commerce, collaboration, and other applications. Metadata is "data about data" or specifically in the context of RDF "data describing web resources." The distinction between "data" and "metadata" is not an absolute one; it is a distinction created primarily by a particular application. Many times the same resource will be interpreted in both ways simultaneously. RDF encourages this view by using XML as the encoding syntax for the metadata. The resources being described by RDF are, in general, anything that can be named via a URI. The broad goal of RDF is to define a mechanism for describing resources that makes no assumptions about a particular application domain, nor defines the semantics of any application domain. The definition of the mechanism should be domain neutral, yet the mechanism should be suitable for describing information about any domain. This document introduces a model for representing RDF metadata and one syntax for expressing and transporting this metadata in a manner that maximizes the interoperability of independently developed web servers and clients. The syntax described in this document is best considered as a "serialization syntax" for the underlying RDF representation model. The serialization syntax is XML, XML being the W3C's work-in-progress to define a richer Web syntax for a variety of applications. RDF and XML are complementary; there will be alternate ways to represent the same RDF data model, some more suitable for direct human authoring. Future work may lead to including such alternatives in this document.

0.021778613 = product of:
  0.043557227 = sum of:
    0.030157281 = weight(_text_:digital in 517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030157281 = score(doc=517,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.15253544 = fieldWeight in 517, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=517)
    0.013399946 = weight(_text_:library in 517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013399946 = score(doc=517,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.10167781 = fieldWeight in 517, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=517)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

This type of effort is common in the digital library community, where a group of experts will interact with a user community to create a thesaurus for a specific domain (e.g. the Art & Architecture Thesaurus AAT AAT) or an overarching classification scheme (e.g. the Dewey Decimal Classification). A similar type of activity is being undertaken more recently in a less centralised manner by web communities, producing for example the DMOZ web directory DMOZ, or the Topic Exchange for weblog topics Topic Exchange. The web, including the semantic web, provides a medium within which communities can interact and collaboratively build and use vocabularies of concepts. A simple language is required that allows these communities to express the structure and content of their vocabularies in a machine-understandable way, enabling exchange and reuse. The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is an ideal language for making statements about web resources and publishing metadata. However, RDF provides only the low level semantics required to form metadata statements. RDF vocabularies must be built on top of RDF to support the expression of more specific types of information within metadata. Ontology languages such as OWL OWL add a layer of expressive power to RDF, and provide powerful tools for defining complex conceptual structures, which can be used to generate rich metadata. However, the class-oriented, logically precise modelling required to construct useful web ontologies is demanding in terms of expertise, effort, and therefore cost. In many cases this type of modelling may be superfluous or unsuited to requirements. Therefore there is a need for a language for expressing vocabularies of concepts for use in semantically rich metadata, that is powerful enough to support semantically enhanced search, but simple enough to be undemanding in terms of the cost and expertise required to use it."

0.018908933 = product of:
  0.037817866 = sum of:
    0.013399946 = weight(_text_:library in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013399946 = score(doc=1210,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.10167781 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
    0.024417918 = product of:
      0.048835836 = sum of:
        0.048835836 = weight(_text_:project in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048835836 = score(doc=1210,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.2308349 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Semantic Web activity is a W3C project whose goal is to enable a 'cooperative' Web where machines and humans can exchange electronic content that has clear-cut, unambiguous meaning. This vision is based on the automated sharing of metadata terms across Web applications. The declaration of schemas in metadata registries advance this vision by providing a common approach for the discovery, understanding, and exchange of semantics. However, many of the issues regarding registries are not clear, and ideas vary regarding their scope and purpose. Additionally, registry issues are often difficult to describe and comprehend without a working example. This article will explore the role of metadata registries and will describe three prototypes, written by the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. The article will outline how the prototypes are being used to demonstrate and evaluate application scope, functional requirements, and technology solutions for metadata registries. Metadata schema registries are, in effect, databases of schemas that can trace an historical line back to shared data dictionaries and the registration process encouraged by the ISO/IEC 11179 community. New impetus for the development of registries has come with the development activities surrounding creation of the Semantic Web. The motivation for establishing registries arises from domain and standardization communities, and from the knowledge management community. Examples of current registry activity include:
* Agencies maintaining directories of data elements in a domain area in accordance with ISO/IEC 11179 (This standard specifies good practice for data element definition as well as the registration process. Example implementations are the National Health Information Knowledgebase hosted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the Environmental Data Registry hosted by the US Environmental Protection Agency.); * The xml.org directory of the Extended Markup Language (XML) document specifications facilitating re-use of Document Type Definition (DTD), hosted by the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS); * The MetaForm database of Dublin Core usage and mappings maintained at the State and University Library in Goettingen; * The Semantic Web Agreement Group Dictionary, a database of terms for the Semantic Web that can be referred to by humans and software agents; * LEXML, a multi-lingual and multi-jurisdictional RDF Dictionary for the legal world; * The SCHEMAS registry maintained by the European Commission funded SCHEMAS project, which indexes several metadata element sets as well as a large number of activity reports describing metadata related activities and initiatives. Metadata registries essentially provide an index of terms. Given the distributed nature of the Web, there are a number of ways this can be accomplished. For example, the registry could link to terms and definitions in schemas published by implementers and stored locally by the schema maintainer. Alternatively, the registry might harvest various metadata schemas from their maintainers. Registries provide 'added value' to users by indexing schemas relevant to a particular 'domain' or 'community of use' and by simplifying the navigation of terms by enabling multiple schemas to be accessed from one view. An important benefit of this approach is an increase in the reuse of existing terms, rather than users having to reinvent them. Merging schemas to one view leads to harmonization between applications and helps avoid duplication of effort. Additionally, the establishment of registries to index terms actively being used in local implementations facilitates the metadata standards activity by providing implementation experience transferable to the standards-making process.

0.01795752 = product of:
  0.07183008 = sum of:
    0.07183008 = weight(_text_:library in 4796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07183008 = score(doc=4796,freq=44.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.5450414 = fieldWeight in 4796, product of:
          6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
            44.0 = termFreq=44.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4796)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The mission of the W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group, chartered from May 2010 through August 2011, has been "to help increase global interoperability of library data on the Web, by bringing together people involved in Semantic Web activities - focusing on Linked Data - in the library community and beyond, building on existing initiatives, and identifying collaboration tracks for the future." In Linked Data [LINKEDDATA], data is expressed using standards such as Resource Description Framework (RDF) [RDF], which specifies relationships between things, and Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs, or "Web addresses") [URI]. This final report of the Incubator Group examines how Semantic Web standards and Linked Data principles can be used to make the valuable information assets that library create and curate - resources such as bibliographic data, authorities, and concept schemes - more visible and re-usable outside of their original library context on the wider Web. The Incubator Group began by eliciting reports on relevant activities from parties ranging from small, independent projects to national library initiatives (see the separate report, Library Linked Data Incubator Group: Use Cases) [USECASE]. These use cases provided the starting point for the work summarized in the report: an analysis of the benefits of library Linked Data, a discussion of current issues with regard to traditional library data, existing library Linked Data initiatives, and legal rights over library data; and recommendations for next steps. The report also summarizes the results of a survey of current Linked Data technologies and an inventory of library Linked Data resources available today (see also the more detailed report, Library Linked Data Incubator Group: Datasets, Value Vocabularies, and Metadata Element Sets) [VOCABDATASET].
Key recommendations of the report are: - That library leaders identify sets of data as possible candidates for early exposure as Linked Data and foster a discussion about Open Data and rights; - That library standards bodies increase library participation in Semantic Web standardization, develop library data standards that are compatible with Linked Data, and disseminate best-practice design patterns tailored to library Linked Data; - That data and systems designers design enhanced user services based on Linked Data capabilities, create URIs for the items in library datasets, develop policies for managing RDF vocabularies and their URIs, and express library data by re-using or mapping to existing Linked Data vocabularies; - That librarians and archivists preserve Linked Data element sets and value vocabularies and apply library experience in curation and long-term preservation to Linked Data datasets.

0.015333011 = product of:
  0.030666022 = sum of:
    0.013399946 = weight(_text_:library in 553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013399946 = score(doc=553,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.10167781 = fieldWeight in 553, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=553)
    0.017266076 = product of:
      0.034532152 = sum of:
        0.034532152 = weight(_text_:project in 553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034532152 = score(doc=553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.16322492 = fieldWeight in 553, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Currently, a number of efforts are being carried out to integrate collections from different institutions and containing heterogeneous material. Examples of such projects are The European Library [1] and the Memory of the Netherlands [2]. A crucial point for the success of these is the availability to provide a unified access on top of the different collections, e.g. using one single vocabulary for querying or browsing the objects they contain. This is made difficult by the fact that the objects from different collections are often described using different vocabularies - thesauri, classification schemes - and are therefore not interoperable at the semantic level. To solve this problem, one can turn to semantic links - mappings - between the elements of the different vocabularies. If one knows that a concept C from a vocabulary V is semantically equivalent to a concept to a concept D from vocabulary W, then an appropriate search engine can return all the objects that were indexed against D for a query for objects described using C. We thus have an access to other collections, using a single one vocabulary. This is however an ideal situation, and hard alignment work is required to reach it. Several projects in the past have tried to implement such a solution, like MACS [3] and Renardus [4]. They have demonstrated very interesting results, but also highlighted the difficulty of aligning manually all the different vocabularies involved in practical cases, which sometimes contain hundreds of thousands of concepts. To alleviate this problem, a number of tools have been proposed in order to provide with candidate mappings between two input vocabularies, making alignment a (semi-) automatic task. Recently, the Semantic Web community has produced a lot of these alignment tools'. Several techniques are found, depending on the material they exploit: labels of concepts, structure of vocabularies, collection objects and external knowledge sources. Throughout our presentation, we will present a concrete heterogeneity case where alignment techniques have been applied to build a (pilot) browser, developed in the context of the STITCH project [5]. This browser enables a unified access to two collections of illuminated manuscripts, using the description vocabulary used in the first collection, Mandragore [6], or the one used by the second, Iconclass [7]. In our talk, we will also make the point for using unified representations the vocabulary semantic and lexical information. Additionally to ease the use of the alignment tools that have these vocabularies as input, turning to a standard representation format helps designing applications that are more generic, like the browser we demonstrate. We give pointers to SKOS [8], an open and web-enabled format currently developed by the Semantic Web community.

0.015078641 = product of:
  0.060314562 = sum of:
    0.060314562 = weight(_text_:digital in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060314562 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 80, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=80)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Semantic Web and ontologies can help archaeologists combine and share data, making it more open and useful. Archaeologists create diverse types of data, using a wide variety of technologies and methodologies. Like all research domains, these data are increasingly digital. The creation of data that are now openly and persistently available from disparate sources has also inspired efforts to bring archaeological resources together and make them more interoperable. This allows functionality such as federated cross-search across different datasets, and the mapping of heterogeneous data to authoritative structures to build a single data source. Ontologies provide the structure and relationships for Semantic Web data, and have been developed for use in cultural heritage applications generally, and archaeology specifically. A variety of online resources for archaeology now incorporate Semantic Web principles and technologies.

0.012185382 = product of:
  0.048741527 = sum of:
    0.048741527 = weight(_text_:digital in 4040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048741527 = score(doc=4040,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2465345 = fieldWeight in 4040, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4040)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Today's semantic web deals with meaning in a very restricted sense and offers static solutions. This is adequate for many scientific, technical purposes and for business transactions requiring machine-to-machine communication, but does not answer the needs of culture. Science, technology and business are concerned primarily with the latest findings, the state of the art, i.e. the paradigm or dominant world-view of the day. In this context, history is considered non-essential because it deals with things that are out of date. By contrast, culture faces a much larger challenge, namely, to re-present changes in ways of knowing; changing meanings in different places at a given time (synchronically) and over time (diachronically). Culture is about both objects and the commentaries on them; about a cumulative body of knowledge; about collective memory and heritage. Here, history plays a central role and older does not mean less important or less relevant. Hence, a Leonardo painting that is 400 years old, or a Greek statue that is 2500 years old, typically have richer commentaries and are often more valuable than their contemporary equivalents. In this context, the science of meaning (semantics) is necessarily much more complex than semantic primitives. A semantic web in the cultural domain must enable us to trace how meaning and knowledge organisation have evolved historically in different cultures. This paper examines five issues to address this challenge: 1) different world-views (i.e. a shift from substance to function and from ontology to multiple ontologies); 2) developments in definitions and meaning; 3) distinctions between words and concepts; 4) new classes of relations; and 5) dynamic models of knowledge organisation. These issues reveal that historical dimensions of cultural diversity in knowledge organisation are also central to classification of biological diversity. New ways are proposed of visualizing knowledge using a time/space horizon to distinguish between universals and particulars. It is suggested that new visualization methods make possible a history of questions as well as of answers, thus enabling dynamic access to cultural and historical dimensions of knowledge. Unlike earlier media, which were limited to recording factual dimensions of collective memory, digital media enable us to explore theories, ways of perceiving, ways of knowing; to enter into other mindsets and world-views and thus to attain novel insights and new levels of tolerance. Some practical consequences are outlined.

Source

Journal of digital information. 4(2004), no.4

0.011883841 = product of:
  0.047535364 = sum of:
    0.047535364 = product of:
      0.09507073 = sum of:
        0.09507073 = weight(_text_:22 in 4643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09507073 = score(doc=4643,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4643, 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=4643)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.010828791 = product of:
  0.043315165 = sum of:
    0.043315165 = weight(_text_:library in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043315165 = score(doc=54,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper presents the semantic web, web writing content, web technology, goals of semantic and obligation for the expansion of web 3.0. This paper also shows the different components of semantic web and such as HTTP, HTML, XML, XML Schema, URI, RDF, Taxonomy and OWL. To provide valuable information services semantic web execute the benefits of library functions and also to be the best use of library collection are mention here.

0.010770457 = product of:
  0.043081827 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 5799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=5799,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 5799, 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=5799)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.01018615 = product of:
  0.0407446 = sum of:
    0.0407446 = product of:
      0.0814892 = sum of:
        0.0814892 = weight(_text_:22 in 100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0814892 = score(doc=100,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 100, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.00932749 = product of:
  0.03730996 = sum of:
    0.03730996 = weight(_text_:digital in 4232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03730996 = score(doc=4232,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.18871367 = fieldWeight in 4232, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4232)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This PhD-thesis describes how to effectively explore linked data on the Web. The main focus is on scenarios where users want to discover relationships between resources rather than finding out more about something specific. Searching for a specific document or piece of information fits in the theoretical framework of information retrieval and is associated with exploratory search. Exploratory search goes beyond 'looking up something' when users are seeking more detailed understanding, further investigation or navigation of the initial search results. The ideas behind exploratory search and querying linked data merge when it comes to the way knowledge is represented and indexed by machines - how data is structured and stored for optimal searchability. Queries and information should be aligned to facilitate that searches also reveal connections between results. This implies that they take into account the same semantic entities, relevant at that moment. To realize this, we research three techniques that are evaluated one by one in an experimental set-up to assess how well they succeed in their goals. In the end, the techniques are applied to a practical use case that focuses on forming a bridge between the Web and the use of digital libraries in scientific research. Our first technique focuses on the interactive visualization of search results. Linked data resources can be brought in relation with each other at will. This leads to complex and diverse graphs structures. Our technique facilitates navigation and supports a workflow starting from a broad overview on the data and allows narrowing down until the desired level of detail to then broaden again. To validate the flow, two visualizations where implemented and presented to test-users. The users judged the usability of the visualizations, how the visualizations fit in the workflow and to which degree their features seemed useful for the exploration of linked data.
The ideas behind exploratory search and querying linked data merge when it comes to the way knowledge is represented and indexed by machines - how data is structured and stored for optimal searchability. eries and information should be aligned to facilitate that searches also reveal connections between results. This implies that they take into account the same semantic entities, relevant at that moment. To realize this, we research three techniques that are evaluated one by one in an experimental set-up to assess how well they succeed in their goals. In the end, the techniques are applied to a practical use case that focuses on forming a bridge between the Web and the use of digital libraries in scientific research.
When we speak about finding relationships between resources, it is necessary to dive deeper in the structure. The graph structure of linked data where the semantics give meaning to the relationships between resources enable the execution of pathfinding algorithms. The assigned weights and heuristics are base components of such algorithms and ultimately define (the order) which resources are included in a path. These paths explain indirect connections between resources. Our third technique proposes an algorithm that optimizes the choice of resources in terms of serendipity. Some optimizations guard the consistence of candidate-paths where the coherence of consecutive connections is maximized to avoid trivial and too arbitrary paths. The implementation uses the A* algorithm, the de-facto reference when it comes to heuristically optimized minimal cost paths. The effectiveness of paths was measured based on common automatic metrics and surveys where the users could indicate their preference for paths, generated each time in a different way. Finally, all our techniques are applied to a use case about publications in digital libraries where they are aligned with information about scientific conferences and researchers. The application to this use case is a practical example because the different aspects of exploratory search come together. In fact, the techniques also evolved from the experiences when implementing the use case. Practical details about the semantic model are explained and the implementation of the search system is clarified module by module. The evaluation positions the result, a prototype of a tool to explore scientific publications, researchers and conferences next to some important alternatives.

0.008720686 = product of:
  0.034882743 = sum of:
    0.034882743 = product of:
      0.069765486 = sum of:
        0.069765486 = weight(_text_:project in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069765486 = score(doc=1210,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.32976416 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The current web consists of documents that are highly heterogeneous and hard for machines to understand. The Semantic Web is a progressive movement of the Word Wide Web, aiming at converting the current web of unstructured documents to the web of data. In the Semantic Web, web documents are annotated with metadata using standardized ontology language. These annotated documents are directly processable by machines and it highly improves their usability and usefulness. In Ericsson, similar problems occur. There are massive documents being created with well-defined structures. Though these documents are about domain specific knowledge and can have rich relations, they are currently managed by a traditional search engine, which ignores the rich domain specific information and presents few data to users. Motivated by the Semantic Web, we aim to find standard ways to process these documents, extract rich domain specific information and annotate these data to documents with formal markup languages. We propose this project to develop a domain specific search engine for processing different documents and building explicit relations for them. This research project consists of the three main focuses: examining different domain specific documents and finding ways to extract their metadata; integrating a text search engine with an ontology server; exploring novel ways to build relations for documents. We implement this system and demonstrate its functions. As a prototype, the system provides required features and will be extended in the future.

0.008289068 = product of:
  0.033156272 = sum of:
    0.033156272 = weight(_text_:library in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033156272 = score(doc=2277,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Data munging, or the work of remediating, enhancing and transforming library datasets for new or improved uses, has become more important and staff-inclusive in many library technology discussions and projects. Many times we know how we want our data to look, as well as how we want our data to act in discovery interfaces or when exposed, but we are uncertain how to make the data we have into the data we want. This article introduces and compares two library data munging tools that can help: LODRefine (OpenRefine with the DERI RDF Extension) and Catmandu. The strengths and best practices of each tool are discussed in the context of metadata munging use cases for an institution's metadata migration workflow. There is a focus on Linked Open Data modeling and transformation applications of each tool, in particular how metadataists, catalogers, and programmers can create metadata quality reports, enhance existing data with LOD sets, and transform that data to a RDF model. Integration of these tools with other systems and projects, the use of domain specific transformation languages, and the expansion of vocabulary reconciliation services are mentioned.

0.0076571116 = product of:
  0.030628446 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 3063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=3063,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 3063, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3063)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Resource Description Framework (RDF) integrates a variety of applications from library catalogs and world-wide directories to syndication and aggregation of news, software, and content to personal collections of music, photos, and events using XML as an interchange syntax. The RDF specifications provide a lightweight ontology system to support the exchange of knowledge on the Web. The W3C Semantic Web Activity Statement explains W3C's plans for RDF, including the RDF Core WG, Web Ontology and the RDF Interest Group.

0.007490797 = product of:
  0.029963188 = sum of:
    0.029963188 = weight(_text_:library in 3062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029963188 = score(doc=3062,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.22735849 = fieldWeight in 3062, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3062)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

SKOS Adapts to the Diversity of Knowledge Organization Systems A useful starting point for understanding the role of SKOS is the set of subject headings published by the US Library of Congress (LOC) for categorizing books, videos, and other library resources. These headings can be used to broaden or narrow queries for discovering resources. For instance, one can narrow a query about books on "Chinese literature" to "Chinese drama," or further still to "Chinese children's plays." Library of Congress subject headings have evolved within a community of practice over a period of decades. By now publishing these subject headings in SKOS, the Library of Congress has made them available to the linked data community, which benefits from a time-tested set of concepts to re-use in their own data. This re-use adds value ("the network effect") to the collection. When people all over the Web re-use the same LOC concept for "Chinese drama," or a concept from some other vocabulary linked to it, this creates many new routes to the discovery of information, and increases the chances that relevant items will be found. As an example of mapping one vocabulary to another, a combined effort from the STITCH, TELplus and MACS Projects provides links between LOC concepts and RAMEAU, a collection of French subject headings used by the Bibliothèque Nationale de France and other institutions. SKOS can be used for subject headings but also many other approaches to organizing knowledge. Because different communities are comfortable with different organization schemes, SKOS is designed to port diverse knowledge organization systems to the Web. "Active participation from the library and information science community in the development of SKOS over the past seven years has been key to ensuring that SKOS meets a variety of needs," said Thomas Baker, co-chair of the Semantic Web Deployment Working Group, which published SKOS. "One goal in creating SKOS was to provide new uses for well-established knowledge organization systems by providing a bridge to the linked data cloud." SKOS is part of the Semantic Web technology stack. Like the Web Ontology Language (OWL), SKOS can be used to define vocabularies. But the two technologies were designed to meet different needs. SKOS is a simple language with just a few features, tuned for sharing and linking knowledge organization systems such as thesauri and classification schemes. OWL offers a general and powerful framework for knowledge representation, where additional "rigor" can afford additional benefits (for instance, business rule processing). To get started with SKOS, see the SKOS Primer.