Search (127 results, page 1 of 7)

0.059171103 = product of:
  0.08875665 = sum of:
    0.06476502 = weight(_text_:reference in 6128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06476502 = score(doc=6128,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.31464687 = fieldWeight in 6128, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6128)
    0.023991633 = product of:
      0.047983266 = sum of:
        0.047983266 = weight(_text_:22 in 6128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047983266 = score(doc=6128,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6128, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6128)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Discusses the goals and outcome of the OCLC/NCSA Metadata Workshop, held in Dublin, Ohio, 1-3 Mar 95, which resulted in the proposed 'Dublin Core' Metadata Elements. Describes an attempt to map the Dublin Core data elements to the USMARC format (with particular reference to USMARC field 856 for electronic locations), noting problems and outstanding questions. The USMARC format elements considered include: subject, title, author, other-agent, publisher, publication date, identifier, object-type, form, relation, language, source, coverage, and other issues

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.22, nos.3/4

0.059171103 = product of:
  0.08875665 = sum of:
    0.06476502 = weight(_text_:reference in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06476502 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.31464687 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
    0.023991633 = product of:
      0.047983266 = sum of:
        0.047983266 = weight(_text_:22 in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047983266 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A variety of information communities have developed metadata schemes to meet the needs of their own users. The ability of libraries to incorporate and use multiple metadata schemes in current library systems will depend on the compatibility of imported data with existing catalog data. Authority control will play an important role in metadata interoperability. In this article, I discuss factors for successful authority control in current library catalogs, which include operation in a well-defined and bounded universe, application of principles and standard practices to access point creation, reference to authoritative lists, and bibliographic record creation by highly trained individuals. Metadata characteristics and environmental models are examined and the likelihood of successful authority control is explored for a variety of metadata environments.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.055277795 = product of:
  0.08291669 = sum of:
    0.055512875 = weight(_text_:reference in 1439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055512875 = score(doc=1439,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 1439, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1439)
    0.027403818 = product of:
      0.054807637 = sum of:
        0.054807637 = weight(_text_:database in 1439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054807637 = score(doc=1439,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.26797873 = fieldWeight in 1439, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1439)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The relationship between library catalogues and electronic resources differs from that between catalogues and physical materials, particularly with regard to cataloguing rules, which were originally designed to help users of card catalogues to find physical works on library shelves. However, these rules apply awkwardly to electronic resources because functionally different electronic works raise special cataloguinf issues. Discusses the problems of describing remote electronic resources in online catalogues with particular reference to the InterCat project: a nationwide experiment to create a database of Internet resources in MARC format, containing description, location and access information (including PURLs = Persitent URLs)). Concludes that descriptive information helps the user identify the works needed, but that it is practical to provide only minimal desriptive information for remote electronic resources in the catalogue record. To a limited extent, the access lost from reduced description can be replaced with new cataloguing techniques designed to stabilize the catalogue record

0.04317668 = product of:
  0.12953004 = sum of:
    0.12953004 = weight(_text_:reference in 2251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12953004 = score(doc=2251,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.62929374 = fieldWeight in 2251, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2251)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.04317668 = product of:
  0.12953004 = sum of:
    0.12953004 = weight(_text_:reference in 3468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12953004 = score(doc=3468,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.62929374 = fieldWeight in 3468, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3468)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.04226508 = product of:
  0.063397616 = sum of:
    0.046260733 = weight(_text_:reference in 2624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046260733 = score(doc=2624,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 2624, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2624)
    0.017136881 = product of:
      0.034273762 = sum of:
        0.034273762 = weight(_text_:22 in 2624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034273762 = score(doc=2624,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = 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

0.04189677 = product of:
  0.062845156 = sum of:
    0.037008587 = weight(_text_:reference in 5134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037008587 = score(doc=5134,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.17979822 = fieldWeight in 5134, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5134)
    0.025836568 = product of:
      0.051673137 = sum of:
        0.051673137 = weight(_text_:database in 5134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051673137 = score(doc=5134,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.25265276 = fieldWeight in 5134, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5134)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Metadata research has emerged as a discipline cross-cutting many domains, focused on the provision of distributed descriptions (often called annotations) to Web resources or applications. Such associated descriptions are supposed to serve as a foundation for advanced services in many application areas, including search and location, personalization, federation of repositories and automated delivery of information. Indeed, the Semantic Web is in itself a concrete technological framework for ontology-based metadata. For example, Web-based social networking requires metadata describing people and their interrelations, and large databases with biological information use complex and detailed metadata schemas for more precise and informed search strategies. There is a wide diversity in the languages and idioms used for providing meta-descriptions, from simple structured text in metadata schemas to formal annotations using ontologies, and the technologies for storing, sharing and exploiting meta-descriptions are also diverse and evolve rapidly. In addition, there is a proliferation of schemas and standards related to metadata, resulting in a complex and moving technological landscape - hence, the need for specialized knowledge and skills in this area. The Handbook of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies is intended as an authoritative reference for students, practitioners and researchers, serving as a roadmap for the variety of metadata schemas and ontologies available in a number of key domain areas, including culture, biology, education, healthcare, engineering and library science.

LCSH

Database management

Subject

Database management

0.037308503 = product of:
  0.111925505 = sum of:
    0.111925505 = sum of:
      0.06394224 = weight(_text_:database in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06394224 = score(doc=637,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050593734 = queryNorm
          0.31264183 = fieldWeight in 637, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=637)
      0.047983266 = weight(_text_:22 in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047983266 = score(doc=637,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050593734 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 637, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=637)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In an interview, Diane I. Hillmann, an expert in metadata for digital libraries and currently co-principal investigator for the National Science Digital Library Registry based at Cornell University, discusses her education and career, and provides overviews and insights on metadata initiatives, including standards and models such as the widely adopted Dublin Core schema. She shares her professional interests from the early part of her career with communications, cataloging, and database production services; highlights key issues; and provides ideas and resources for managing changes in metadata standards and digital projects.

Date

2.12.2007 19:35:22

0.03197872 = product of:
  0.09593615 = sum of:
    0.09593615 = sum of:
      0.054807637 = weight(_text_:database in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054807637 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050593734 = queryNorm
          0.26797873 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)
      0.041128512 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041128512 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050593734 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article presents examples of metadata collaborations between the Swiss National Library (NL) and research institutions in the field of Swiss historiography. The NL publishes the Bibliography on Swiss History (BSH). In order to meet the demands of its research community, the NL has improved the accessibility and interoperability of the BSH database. Moreover, the BSH takes part in metadata projects such as Metagrid, a web service linking different historical databases. Other metadata collaborations with partners in the historical field such as the Law Sources Foundation (LSF) will position the BSH as an indispensable literature hub for publications on Swiss history.

Date

30. 5.2019 19:22:49

0.026169024 = product of:
  0.07850707 = sum of:
    0.07850707 = weight(_text_:reference in 2222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07850707 = score(doc=2222,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.38140965 = fieldWeight in 2222, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2222)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes the structure of metadata formats with particular reference to the taxonomy of data formats set out by the BIBLINK report of the UK Office for Library and Information Networking and based on their underlying complexity. Referes to 3 main types of metadata: Dublin Core; MARC and Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). Provides practical examples of the actual codings used, illustrated with reference to the Dublin Core, Marc and FGDC elements in selected Web sites. Ends with a glossary and a list of Web sites containing background information on metadata, such as the IAMSLIC metadata homepage

0.02180752 = product of:
  0.06542256 = sum of:
    0.06542256 = weight(_text_:reference in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06542256 = score(doc=63,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.31784135 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Conventional rule-based approaches use exact template matching to capture linguistic information and necessarily need to enumerate all variations. We propose a novel flexible template generation and matching scheme called the principle-based approach (PBA) based on sequence alignment, and employ it for reference metadata extraction (RME) to demonstrate its effectiveness. The main contributions of this research are threefold. First, we propose an automatic template generation that can capture prominent patterns using the dominating set algorithm. Second, we devise an alignment-based template-matching technique that uses a logistic regression model, which makes it more general and flexible than pure rule-based approaches. Last, we apply PBA to RME on extensive cross-domain corpora and demonstrate its robustness and generality. Experiments reveal that the same set of templates produced by the PBA framework not only deliver consistent performance on various unseen domains, but also surpass hand-crafted knowledge (templates). We use four independent journal style test sets and one conference style test set in the experiments. When compared to renowned machine learning methods, such as conditional random fields (CRF), as well as recent deep learning methods (i.e., bi-directional long short-term memory with a CRF layer, Bi-LSTM-CRF), PBA has the best performance for all datasets.

0.02158834 = product of:
  0.06476502 = sum of:
    0.06476502 = weight(_text_:reference in 5096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06476502 = score(doc=5096,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.31464687 = fieldWeight in 5096, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5096)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Since records are timebvound, and contextual metadata must be understood by an observer whose frame of reference is different from that of the recordkeeper, there is a need for external validation. The processes of terminological control, based on definition, are inadequate for this purpose and what is needed is a process of contextual control, based on observation. Ambience is the context of provenance and it is there that we will find external validation of provenance data. Functions offer one possible tool for crafting ambient relationships. Ambient functions define and give meaning to agents of recordkeeping within the context in which they operate and should be distinguished from business activities and processes which do not afford the basis for meaningful discrimination necessary when formulating appraisal categories and useful search patterns

0.02158834 = product of:
  0.06476502 = sum of:
    0.06476502 = weight(_text_:reference in 3201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06476502 = score(doc=3201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.31464687 = fieldWeight in 3201, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3201)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Outlines the meatadata standard known as the Dublin Core, as well as the Instructional Management Systems Projects, an American Educom NLII initiative which is developing a specification and software for managing online learning resources. Gives the list of fields with brief descriptions from the IMS Metadata Dictionary, and describes the UK Performing Arts Data Service (PADS) workshops on moving image and sound resources with particular reference to the use of the Dublin Core for cataloguing sound recordings. The slow rate of audiovisual progress is touched on: 5 other relevant initiatives connected wit metadata are listed

0.02136692 = product of:
  0.06410076 = sum of:
    0.06410076 = weight(_text_:reference in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06410076 = score(doc=1192,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.31141967 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In the June 2003 issue of D-Lib Magazine, Kenney et al. (2003) discuss a comparative study between Cornell's email reference staff and Google's Answers service. This interesting study provided insights on the potential impact of "computing and simple algorithms combined with human intelligence" for library reference services. As mentioned in the Kenney et al. article, Bill Arms (2000) had discussed the possibilities of automated digital libraries in an even earlier D-Lib article. Arms discusses not only automating reference services, but also another library function that seems to inspire lively debates about automation-metadata creation. While intended to illuminate, these debates sometimes generate more heat than light. In an effort to explore the potential for automating metadata generation, the Digital Knowledge Center (DKC) of the Sheridan Libraries at The Johns Hopkins University developed and tested an automated name authority control (ANAC) tool. ANAC represents a component of a digital workflow management system developed in connection with the digital Lester S. Levy Collection of Sheet Music. The evaluation of ANAC followed the spirit of the Kenney et al. study that was, as they stated, "more exploratory than scientific." These ANAC evaluation results are shared with the hope of fostering constructive dialogue and discussions about the potential for semi-automated techniques or frameworks for library functions and services such as metadata creation. The DKC's research agenda emphasizes the development of tools that combine automated processes and human intervention, with the overall goal of involving humans at higher levels of analysis and decision-making. Others have looked at issues regarding the automated generation of metadata. A session at the 2003 Joint Conference on Digital Libraries was devoted to automatic metadata creation, and a session at the 2004 conference addressed automated name disambiguation. Commercial vendors such as OCLC, Marcive, and LTI have long used automated techniques for matching names to Library of Congress authority records. We began developing ANAC as a component of a larger suite of open source tools to support workflow management for digital projects. This article describes the goals for the ANAC tool, provides an overview of the metadata records used for testing, describes the architecture for ANAC, and concludes with discussions of the methodology and evaluation of the experiment comparing human cataloging and ANAC-generated results.

0.019388169 = product of:
  0.058164507 = sum of:
    0.058164507 = product of:
      0.116329014 = sum of:
        0.116329014 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.116329014 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = 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

0.018504292 = product of:
  0.055512875 = sum of:
    0.055512875 = weight(_text_:reference in 5727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055512875 = score(doc=5727,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 5727, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5727)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) is a data communication standard for encoding descriptive, administrative, and structural metadata regarding objects within a digital library, expressed using the XML Schema Language of the World Wide Web Consortium. An initiative of the Digital Library Federation, METS is under development by an international editorial board and is maintained in the Network Development and MARC Standards Office of the Library of Congress. Designed in conformance with the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) Reference Model, a METS document encapsulates digital objects and metadata as Information Packages for transmitting and/or exchanging digital objects to and from digital repositories, disseminating digital objects via the Web, and archiving digital objects for long-term preservation and access. This paper presents an introduction to the METS standard and through illustrated examples, demonstrates how to build a METS document.

0.018504292 = product of:
  0.055512875 = sum of:
    0.055512875 = weight(_text_:reference in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055512875 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

It is apparent that, despite the common reference to the World Wide Web as a "digital library", it lacks any of the organising features which would be expected from a library. The rate of growth of Web resources is such that they have grown, and continue to grow, beyond the ability of human intervention to catalogue them or control access to them. The software tools which have so far emerged to assist searching are inadequate for the task, but it is hoped that a development in standards will lead to documents being created with the "hooks" in place, which will facilitate their retrieval by tools yet to be developed. Dublin Core metadata appears to be the optimum such emergent standard, and its use is to be encouraged among Web authors.

0.018504292 = product of:
  0.055512875 = sum of:
    0.055512875 = weight(_text_:reference in 1575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055512875 = score(doc=1575,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 1575, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1575)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to enhance cultural heritage data curation. A core research question of this study is how to share cultural heritage data by using ontologies. A case study was conducted using open government data mapped with the CIDOC-CRM (Conceptual Reference Model). Twelve library-related files in unstructured data format were collected from an open government website, Seoul Metropolitan Government of Korea (http://data.seoul.go.kr). By using the ontologies of the CIDOC CRM 5.1.2, we conducted a mapping process as a way of enhancing cultural heritage information to share information as a data component. We graphed each file then mapped each file in tables. Implications of this study are both the enhanced discoverability of unstructured data and the reusability of mapped information. Issues emerging from this study involve verification of detail for complete compatibility without further input from domain experts.

0.018458538 = product of:
  0.05537561 = sum of:
    0.05537561 = product of:
      0.11075122 = sum of:
        0.11075122 = weight(_text_:database in 48) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11075122 = score(doc=48,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.5415116 = fieldWeight in 48, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=48)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Current hypertext systems have been widely and effectively used on relatively small data volumes. Explores the potential of database technology for aiding the implementation of hypertext systems holding very large amounts of complex data. Databases meet many requirements of the hypermedium: persistent data management, large volumes, data modelling, multi-level architecture with abstractions and views, metadata integrated with operational data, short-term transaction processing and high-level end-user languages for searching and updating data. Describes a system implementing the storage, retrieval and recall of trails through hypertext comprising textual complex objects (to illustrate the potential for the use of data bases). Discusses weaknesses in current database systems for handling the complex modelling required

0.01827934 = product of:
  0.05483802 = sum of:
    0.05483802 = product of:
      0.10967604 = sum of:
        0.10967604 = weight(_text_:22 in 4899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10967604 = score(doc=4899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = 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