Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × subject_ss:"Digital libraries"
  1. Witten, I.H.; Bainbridge, M.; Nichols, D.M.: How to build a digital library (2010) 0.01
    0.0050514047 = product of:
      0.025257023 = sum of:
        0.025257023 = weight(_text_:7 in 4027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025257023 = score(doc=4027,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17251469 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052075688 = queryNorm
            0.14640506 = fieldWeight in 4027, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4027)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Isbn
    978-0-12-374857-7
  2. Intner, S.S.; Lazinger, S.S.; Weihs, J.: Metadata and its impact on libraries (2005) 0.00
    0.0035718828 = product of:
      0.017859414 = sum of:
        0.017859414 = weight(_text_:7 in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017859414 = score(doc=339,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17251469 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052075688 = queryNorm
            0.103524014 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Footnote
    Other selected specialized metadata element sets or schemas, such as Government Information Locator Service (GILS), are presented. Attention is brought to the different sets of elements and the need for linking up these elements across metadata schemes from a semantic point of view. It is no surprise, then, that after the presentation of additional specialized sets of metadata from the educational community and the arts sector, attention is turned to the discussion of Crosswalks between metadata element sets or the mapping of one metadata standard to another. Finally, the five appendices detailing elements found in Dublin Core, GILS, ARIADNE versions 3 and 3. 1, and Categories for the Description of Works of Art are an excellent addition to this chapter's focus on metadata and communities of practice. Chapters 3-6 provide an up-to-date account of the use of metadata standards in Libraries from the point of view of a community of practice. Some of the content standards included in these four chapters are AACR2, Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), and Library of Congress Subject Classification. In addition, uses of MARC along with planned implementations of the archival community's encoding scheme, EAD, are covered in detail. In a way, content in these chapters can be considered as a refresher course on the history, current state, importance, and usefulness of the above-mentioned standards in Libraries. Application of the standards is offered for various types of materials, such as monographic materials, continuing resources, and integrating library metadata into local catalogs and databases. A review of current digital library projects takes place in Chapter 7. While details about these projects tend to become out of date fast, the sections on issues and problems encountered in digital projects and successes and failures deserve any reader's close inspection. A suggested model is important enough to merit a specific mention below, in a short list format, as it encapsulates lessons learned from issues, problems, successes, and failures in digital projects. Before detailing the model, however, the various projects included in Chapter 7 should be mentioned. The projects are: Colorado Digitization Project, Cooperative Online Resource Catalog (an Office of Research project by OCLC, Inc.), California Digital Library, JSTOR, LC's National Digital Library Program and VARIATIONS.
  3. Jeanneney, J.-N.: Googles Herausforderung : Für eine europäische Bibliothek (2006) 0.00
    0.0025257024 = product of:
      0.0126285115 = sum of:
        0.0126285115 = weight(_text_:7 in 46) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0126285115 = score(doc=46,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17251469 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052075688 = queryNorm
            0.07320253 = fieldWeight in 46, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=46)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Footnote
    Weitere Rez. in: ZfBB 53(2006) H.3/4, S.215-217 (M. Hollender): "Die Aversion des Präsidenten der Französischen Nationalbibliothek, Jean-Noël Jeanneney, gegen die Pläne von Google zur Massendigitalisierung kann nach der breiten Erörterung in der Tagespresse als zumindest in Grundzügen bekannt vorausgesetzt werden. Nunmehr liegt seine im März 2005 entstandene »Kampfschrift« (S.7) aktualisiert und mit einem Nachwort von Klaus-Dieter Lehmann versehen, auch in einer deutschen Übersetzung vor. So viel vorab: selten erhält man für 9,90 Euro so wenig und zugleich so viel: so viel Polemik, Selbstpreisgabe und Emphase und so wenig konkrete strategisch weiterführende Ideen. Dem Leser fällt vor allem der plumpe Antiamerikanismus, der dem gesamten Büchlein zugrunde liegt, über kurz oder lang unangenehm auf. Jeanneney moniert die »unvermeidliche amerikanische Ichbezogenheit« (S. 9). Wer aber mag es Google verdenken, sein Projekt zunächst mit angloamerikanischen Bibliotheken zu starten? Die Bereitschaft der britischen Boolean Library, ihre exzellenten Bestände vor 1900 von Google ebenfalls digitalisieren zu lassen, wird von Jeanneney im Stile einer Verschwörungstheorie kommentiert: »Wieder einmal wurde uns die altbekannte angloamerikanische Solidarität vorgeführt.« (S.19) Mit derselben Emphase könnte man sich darüber freuen, dass Google sich der Bestände hochbedeutender Forschungsbibliotheken versichert - nicht aber Jeanneney. Fazit: die »US-Dominanz, die mit einer mehr oder weniger bewussten Arroganz einhergeht«, bewirke, dass »alles, was der amerikanischen Weltsicht widerspricht, aussortiert« werde (S. 23). Wer derart voreingenommen wie Jeanneney an die Google-Pläne herangeht, verbaut sich selber die Chancen auf eine konstruktive und kooperative Lösung des Google-Problems. ...