Search (284 results, page 1 of 15)

0.088757 = product of:
  0.177514 = sum of:
    0.177514 = sum of:
      0.06399865 = weight(_text_:library in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06399865 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.46481284 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
      0.113515355 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.113515355 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2840, 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=2840)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

0.07766238 = product of:
  0.15532476 = sum of:
    0.15532476 = sum of:
      0.05599882 = weight(_text_:library in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05599882 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.40671125 = fieldWeight in 7196, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7196)
      0.09932593 = weight(_text_:22 in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09932593 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7196, 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=7196)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

0.07766238 = product of:
  0.15532476 = sum of:
    0.15532476 = sum of:
      0.05599882 = weight(_text_:library in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05599882 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.40671125 = fieldWeight in 2841, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2841)
      0.09932593 = weight(_text_:22 in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09932593 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2841, 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=2841)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2

0.06276068 = product of:
  0.12552136 = sum of:
    0.12552136 = sum of:
      0.04525388 = weight(_text_:library in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04525388 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 2845, 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=2845)
      0.080267474 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.080267474 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The current library bibliographic infrastructure was constructed in the early days of computers - before the Web, XML, and a variety of other technological advances that now offer new opportunities. General requirements of a modern metadata infrastructure for libraries are identified, including such qualities as versatility, extensibility, granularity, and openness. A new kind of metadata infrastructure is then proposed that exhibits at least some of those qualities. Some key challenges that must be overcome to implement a change of this magnitude are identified.

Date

9.12.2005 19:22:38

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.175-181

0.05100578 = product of:
  0.10201156 = sum of:
    0.10201156 = sum of:
      0.04525388 = weight(_text_:library in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04525388 = score(doc=126,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 126, 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=126)
      0.056757677 = weight(_text_:22 in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056757677 = score(doc=126,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 126, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=126)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As libraries attempt to incorporate increasing amounts of electronic resources into their catalogs, utilizing a growing variety of metadata standards, library and information science programs are grappling with how to educate catalogers to meet these challenges. In this paper, an employer considers the characteristics and skills that catalogers will need and how they might acquire them.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 49(2005) no.1, S.14-18

0.05100578 = product of:
  0.10201156 = sum of:
    0.10201156 = sum of:
      0.04525388 = weight(_text_:library in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04525388 = score(doc=751,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 751, 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=751)
      0.056757677 = weight(_text_:22 in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056757677 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

23. 1.2007 11:22:30

Footnote

Auch in: Library computing 19(2000) nos.3/4, S.180-191

Source

Library review. 50(2001) no.1, S.16-27

0.049079686 = product of:
  0.09815937 = sum of:
    0.09815937 = sum of:
      0.048496403 = weight(_text_:library in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048496403 = score(doc=2837,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.3522223 = fieldWeight in 2837, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2837)
      0.049662966 = weight(_text_:22 in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049662966 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2837, 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=2837)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper describes the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS), its accompanying documentation and some of its applications. It reviews the MODS user guidelines provided by the Library of Congress and how they enable a user of the schema to consistently apply MODS as a metadata scheme. Because the schema itself could not fully document appropriate usage, the guidelines provide element definitions, history, relationships with other elements, usage conventions, and examples. Short descriptions of some MODS applications are given and a more detailed discussion of its use in the Library of Congress's Minerva project for Web archiving is given.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.89-98

0.049079686 = product of:
  0.09815937 = sum of:
    0.09815937 = sum of:
      0.048496403 = weight(_text_:library in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048496403 = score(doc=180,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.3522223 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
      0.049662966 = weight(_text_:22 in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049662966 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = 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)

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

Source

Library resources and technical services. 44(2000) no.1, S.33-43

0.049079686 = product of:
  0.09815937 = sum of:
    0.09815937 = sum of:
      0.048496403 = weight(_text_:library in 599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048496403 = score(doc=599,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.3522223 = fieldWeight in 599, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=599)
      0.049662966 = weight(_text_:22 in 599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049662966 = score(doc=599,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 599, 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=599)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Electronic Text Center at the University of Virginia has been mounting SGML full-text databases on-line since 1992, and actively building a user community around this Internet resource. Conceiving of what we do as firmly a library operation, we have sought to integrate the electronic text databases into the training, cataloging, preservation, and collection development areas of our library. Central to our selection criteria is the desire for softwareand platform-independent textsif it's not SGML, it's ephermeraland central to our cataloging endeavors is on SGML bibliographic record such as the Text Encoding Initiative header.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.75-84

0.045283623 = product of:
  0.090567246 = sum of:
    0.090567246 = sum of:
      0.047998987 = weight(_text_:library in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047998987 = score(doc=4748,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 4748, 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=4748)
      0.042568255 = weight(_text_:22 in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042568255 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4748, 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=4748)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Metadata and information technology staff in libraries that are building digital collections typically extract and manipulate MARC metadata sets to provide access to digital content via non-MARC schemes. Metadata processing in these libraries involves defining the relationships between metadata schemes, moving metadata between schemes, and coordinating the intellectual activity and physical resources required to create and manipulate metadata. Actively managing the non-MARC metadata resources used to build digital collections is something most of these libraries have only begun to do. This article proposes strategies for managing MARC metadata repurposing efforts as the first step in a coordinated approach to library metadata management. Guided by lessons learned from Cornell University library mapping and transformation activities, the authors apply the literature of data resource management to library metadata management and propose a model for managing MARC metadata repurposing processes through the implementation of a metadata management design.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.144-152

0.045283623 = product of:
  0.090567246 = sum of:
    0.090567246 = sum of:
      0.047998987 = weight(_text_:library in 2595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047998987 = score(doc=2595,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 2595, 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=2595)
      0.042568255 = weight(_text_:22 in 2595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042568255 = score(doc=2595,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2595, 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=2595)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Academic libraries have moved toward providing social networking features, such as tagging, in their library catalogs. To explore whether user tags can enhance access to individual literary works, the author obtained a sample of individual works of English and American literature from the twentieth and twenty-first centuries from a large academic library catalog and searched them in LibraryThing. The author compared match rates, the availability of subject headings and tags across various literary forms, and the terminology used in tags versus controlled-vocabulary headings on a subset of records. In addition, she evaluated the usefulness of available LibraryThing tags for the library catalog records that lacked subject headings. Options for utilizing the subject terms available in sources outside the local catalog also are discussed.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 55(2011) no.4, S.221-233

0.044630054 = product of:
  0.08926011 = sum of:
    0.08926011 = sum of:
      0.039597142 = weight(_text_:library in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039597142 = score(doc=637,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 637, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=637)
      0.049662966 = weight(_text_:22 in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049662966 = score(doc=637,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.0443785 = product of:
  0.088757 = sum of:
    0.088757 = sum of:
      0.031999324 = weight(_text_:library in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031999324 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 767, 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=767)
      0.056757677 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056757677 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.65-68

0.0443785 = product of:
  0.088757 = sum of:
    0.088757 = sum of:
      0.031999324 = weight(_text_:library in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031999324 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 81, 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=81)
      0.056757677 = weight(_text_:22 in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056757677 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.82-88

0.0443785 = product of:
  0.088757 = sum of:
    0.088757 = sum of:
      0.031999324 = weight(_text_:library in 1001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031999324 = score(doc=1001,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 1001, 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=1001)
      0.056757677 = weight(_text_:22 in 1001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056757677 = score(doc=1001,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1001, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1001)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.99-105

0.0443785 = product of:
  0.088757 = sum of:
    0.088757 = sum of:
      0.031999324 = weight(_text_:library in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031999324 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 4869, 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=4869)
      0.056757677 = weight(_text_:22 in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056757677 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4869, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4869)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article gives an overview of the design and organisation of DutchESS, a Dutch information subject gateway created as a national collaborative effort of the National Library and a number of academic libraries. The combined centralised and distributed model of DutchESS is discussed, as well as its selection policy, its metadata format, classification scheme and retrieval options. Also some options for future collaboration on an international level are explored

Date

22. 6.2002 19:39:23

0.0443785 = product of:
  0.088757 = sum of:
    0.088757 = sum of:
      0.031999324 = weight(_text_:library in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031999324 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 2686, 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=2686)
      0.056757677 = weight(_text_:22 in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056757677 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2686, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2686)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Metadata (structured information about an object or collection of objects) is increasingly important to libraries, archives, and museums. And although librarians are familiar with a number of issues that apply to creating and using metadata (e.g., authority control, controlled vocabularies, etc.), the world of metadata is nonetheless different than library cataloging, with its own set of challenges. Therefore, whether you are new to these concepts or quite experienced with classic cataloging, this short (20 pages) introductory paper on metadata can be helpful

Date

10. 9.2004 10:22:40

0.0443785 = product of:
  0.088757 = sum of:
    0.088757 = sum of:
      0.031999324 = weight(_text_:library in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031999324 = score(doc=2834,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 2834, 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=2834)
      0.056757677 = weight(_text_:22 in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056757677 = score(doc=2834,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2834, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2834)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.52-64

0.042068303 = product of:
  0.084136605 = sum of:
    0.084136605 = sum of:
      0.041568346 = weight(_text_:library in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041568346 = score(doc=4752,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 4752, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4752)
      0.042568255 = weight(_text_:22 in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042568255 = score(doc=4752,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4752, 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=4752)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As educational technology becomes pervasive, demand will grow for library content to be incorporated into courseware. Among the barriers impeding interoperability between libraries and educational tools is the difference in specifications commonly used for the exchange of digital objects and metadata. Among libraries, Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) is a new but increasingly popular standard; the IMS content-package (IMS-CP) plays a parallel role in educational technology. This article describes how METS-encoded library content can be converted into digital objects for IMS-compliant systems through an XSLT-based crosswalk. The conceptual models behind METS and IMS-CP are compared, the design and limitations of an XSLT-based translation are described, and the crosswalks are related to other techniques to enhance interoperability.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.69-81

0.042068303 = product of:
  0.084136605 = sum of:
    0.084136605 = sum of:
      0.041568346 = weight(_text_:library in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041568346 = score(doc=2556,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
      0.042568255 = weight(_text_:22 in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042568255 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2556, 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=2556)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

First generation scholarly research on the Web lacked a firm system of authority control. Second generation Web research is beginning to model subject access with library science principles of bibliographic control and cataloguing. Harnessing the Web and organising the intellectual content with standards and controlled vocabulary provides precise search and retrieval capability, increasing relevance and efficient use of technology. Dublin Core metadata standards permit a full evaluation and cataloguing of Web resources appropriate to highly specific research needs and discovery. Current research points to a type of structure based on a system of faceted classification. This system allows the semantic and syntactic relationships to be defined. Controlled vocabulary, such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings, can be assigned, not in a hierarchical structure, but rather as descriptive facets of relating concepts. Web design features such as this are adding value to discovery and filtering out data that lack authority. The system design allows for scalability and extensibility, two technical features that are integral to future development of the digital library and resource discovery.

Date

30.12.2008 18:22:46