Search (671 results, page 1 of 34)

0.24860221 = product of:
  0.49720442 = sum of:
    0.49720442 = sum of:
      0.45759106 = weight(_text_:crm in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.45759106 = score(doc=4011,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.38785186 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0487299 = queryNorm
          1.1798089 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
      0.03961337 = weight(_text_:22 in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03961337 = score(doc=4011,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1706438 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0487299 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4011, 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=4011)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Das CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM) ist eine Ontologie für den Bereich des Kulturellen Erbes, die als ISO 21127 standardisiert ist. Inzwischen liegen auch OWL-DL-Implementationen des CRM vor, die ihren Einsatz auch im Semantic Web ermöglicht. OWL-DL ist eine entscheidbare Untermenge der Web Ontology Language, die vom W3C spezifiziert wurde. Lokale Anwendungsontologien, die ebenfalls in OWL-DL modelliert werden, können über Subklassenbeziehungen mit dem CRM als Referenzontologie verbunden werden. Dadurch wird es automatischen Prozessen ermöglicht, autonom heterogene Daten semantisch zu validieren, zueinander in Bezug zu setzen und Anfragen über verschiedene Datenbestände innerhalb der Wissensdomäne zu verarbeiten und zu beantworten.

Object

CIDOC CRM

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.13481906 = product of:
  0.26963812 = sum of:
    0.26963812 = product of:
      0.53927624 = sum of:
        0.53927624 = weight(_text_:crm in 467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.53927624 = score(doc=467,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.38785186 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487299 = queryNorm
            1.390418 = fieldWeight in 467, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=467)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The CIDOC CRM provides an ontology for describing entities, properties and relationships appearing in cultural heritage (CH) documentation, history and archeology. CRM promotes shared understanding by providing an extensible semantic framework that any CH information can be mapped to. CRM data is usually represented in semantic web format (RDF) and comprises complex graphs of nodes and properties. An important question is how a user can search through such complex graphs, since the number of possible combinations is staggering. One approach "compresses" the semantic network by mapping many CRM entity classes to a few "Fundamental Concepts" (FC), and mapping whole networks of CRM properties to fewer "Fundamental Relations" (FR). These FC and FRs serve as a "search index" over the CRM semantic web and allow the user to use a simpler query vocabulary. We describe an implementation of CRM FR Search based on OWLIM Rules, done as part of the ResearchSpace (RS) project. We describe the technical details, problems and difficulties encountered, benefits and disadvantages of using OWLIM rules, and preliminary performance results. We provide implementation experience that can be valuable for further implementation, definition and maintenance of CRM FRs.

Object

CIDOC CRM

0.114397764 = product of:
  0.22879553 = sum of:
    0.22879553 = product of:
      0.45759106 = sum of:
        0.45759106 = weight(_text_:crm in 1904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.45759106 = score(doc=1904,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.38785186 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487299 = queryNorm
            1.1798089 = fieldWeight in 1904, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1904)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Libraries and museums developed rules for the description of their collections prior to formalizing the underlying conceptualization reflected in such rules. That formalizing process took place in the 1990s and resulted in two independent conceptual models: FRBR for bibliographic information (published in 1998), and CIDOC CRM for museum information (developed from 1996 on, and issued as ISO standard 21127 in 2006). An international working group was formed in 2003 with the purpose of harmonizing these two models. The resulting model, FRBROO, was published in 2009. It is an extension to CIDOC CRM, using the formalism in which the former is written. It adds to FRBR the dynamic aspects of CIDOC CRM, and a number of refinements (e.g. in the definitions of Work and Manifestation). Some modifications were made in CIDOC CRM as well. FRBROO was developed with Semantic Web technologies in mind, and lends itself well to the Linked Data environment; but will it be used in that context?

Object

CIDOC CRM

0.10232046 = product of:
  0.20464092 = sum of:
    0.20464092 = product of:
      0.40928185 = sum of:
        0.40928185 = weight(_text_:crm in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.40928185 = score(doc=3494,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.38785186 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487299 = queryNorm
            1.055253 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Innerhalb der Gedächtnisinstitutionen Bibliothek, Museum und Archiv gibt es je eigene Beschreibungsmodelle der beherbergten Objekte und Materialien. Für eine genauere bibliografische Erschließung wurde im Bibliotheksbereich das von Benutzerbedürfnissen ausgehende, statische Modell "Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records" (FRBR) geschaffen, dessen ungenauer »Werk«-Begriff ebenso thematisiert wird wie die schwer zu realisierende Übertragbarkeit des Modells auf Nicht-Buchmaterialien. Die Museumswelt orientiert die Darstellung ihrer Bestände am CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM), das sich hinsichtlich der Beschreibung heterogener Museumsobjekte, also Artefakten künstlerischer und intellektueller Gestaltung, als hilfreich erwiesen hat. In gegenseitigem Austausch zwischen IFLA und ICOM wurde FRBR mit CRM harmonisiert. Das Ergebnis, FRBRoo (objektorientiertes FRBR), zeigt seine Vorzüge zum einen in einer strengeren Interpretation der Entitäten der Gruppe 1 des FRBR-Modells und zum anderen in einer genaueren Abbildung von Prozessen bzw. Ereignissen. Beispiele zum Anwendungsbezug von FRBRoo zeigen dessen Zugewinn für die wissenschaftliche Erschließung hand-, druck- und online-schriftlicher Quellen, Werken der Darstellenden Kunst, Landkarten und Musikalien innerhalb einer CRM-basierten Datenbank.

Object

CIDOC CRM

0.096468665 = product of:
  0.19293733 = sum of:
    0.19293733 = product of:
      0.38587466 = sum of:
        0.38587466 = weight(_text_:crm in 4865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.38587466 = score(doc=4865,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.38785186 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487299 = queryNorm
            0.9949022 = fieldWeight in 4865, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

CIDOC CRM

0.096468665 = product of:
  0.19293733 = sum of:
    0.19293733 = product of:
      0.38587466 = sum of:
        0.38587466 = weight(_text_:crm in 4925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.38587466 = score(doc=4925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.38785186 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487299 = queryNorm
            0.9949022 = fieldWeight in 4925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

CIDOC CRM

0.08861213 = product of:
  0.17722426 = sum of:
    0.17722426 = product of:
      0.35444853 = sum of:
        0.35444853 = weight(_text_:crm in 1575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.35444853 = score(doc=1575,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.38785186 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487299 = queryNorm
            0.91387606 = fieldWeight in 1575, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1575)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Object

CIDOC-CRM

0.08861213 = product of:
  0.17722426 = sum of:
    0.17722426 = product of:
      0.35444853 = sum of:
        0.35444853 = weight(_text_:crm in 2247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.35444853 = score(doc=2247,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.38785186 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487299 = queryNorm
            0.91387606 = fieldWeight in 2247, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2247)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The theoretical difficulty underlying gazetteers and time - period thesauri is generally overlooked. Practice demands that they are detailed, exhaustive and universal, but a dumb use may lead to paradoxes of traveling backwards in time, and shamanic - style bi-location. As Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise, these however suggest a solution that resolves the issues by addressing them from a different perspective. After surveying the most popular among such lists, this presentation will try to provide a theoretical basis by embedding them in 4-dimensional space - time and discretizing their granularity. This will allow relating them to CIDOC CRM, and some examples of mapping will be discussed.

Object

CIDOC CRM

0.08526706 = product of:
  0.17053412 = sum of:
    0.17053412 = product of:
      0.34106824 = sum of:
        0.34106824 = weight(_text_:crm in 2895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.34106824 = score(doc=2895,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.38785186 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487299 = queryNorm
            0.8793776 = fieldWeight in 2895, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The article presents a method for automatic semantic indexing of archaeological grey-literature reports using empirical (rule-based) Information Extraction techniques in combination with domain-specific knowledge organization systems. The semantic annotation system (OPTIMA) performs the tasks of Named Entity Recognition, Relation Extraction, Negation Detection, and Word-Sense Disambiguation using hand-crafted rules and terminological resources for associating contextual abstractions with classes of the standard ontology CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM) for cultural heritage and its archaeological extension, CRM-EH. Relation Extraction (RE) performance benefits from a syntactic-based definition of RE patterns derived from domain oriented corpus analysis. The evaluation also shows clear benefit in the use of assistive natural language processing (NLP) modules relating to Word-Sense Disambiguation, Negation Detection, and Noun Phrase Validation, together with controlled thesaurus expansion. The semantic indexing results demonstrate the capacity of rule-based Information Extraction techniques to deliver interoperable semantic abstractions (semantic annotations) with respect to the CIDOC CRM and archaeological thesauri. Major contributions include recognition of relevant entities using shallow parsing NLP techniques driven by a complimentary use of ontological and terminological domain resources and empirical derivation of context-driven RE rules for the recognition of semantic relationships from phrases of unstructured text.

Object

CIDOC-CRM

0.084410086 = product of:
  0.16882017 = sum of:
    0.16882017 = product of:
      0.33764035 = sum of:
        0.33764035 = weight(_text_:crm in 4265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.33764035 = score(doc=4265,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.38785186 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487299 = queryNorm
            0.8705394 = fieldWeight in 4265, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Es wird ein Verfahren vorgestellt, mit dem bereits existierende bibliografische Daten in die CIDOC CRM/FRBRoo-Umgebung übertragen werden können. Es handelt sich dabei um einen mehrstufigen XSLT-Prozess, der im MODS-Format vorliegende bibliografische Daten in ein FRBRoo-konformes RDF umwandelt. Dazu werden die unterschiedlichen Publikationstypen in FRBRoo identifiziert und modelliert. Für die Abbildung der einzelnen bibliografischen Kategorien aus dem verwendeten Austauschformat auf die FRBRoo-Klassen wird auf Konzepte von RDA zurückgegriffen.

Object

CIDOC CRM

0.077396005 = product of:
  0.15479201 = sum of:
    0.15479201 = product of:
      0.464376 = sum of:
        0.464376 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.464376 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41313264 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487299 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.07626518 = product of:
  0.15253036 = sum of:
    0.15253036 = product of:
      0.3050607 = sum of:
        0.3050607 = weight(_text_:crm in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3050607 = score(doc=3965,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.38785186 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487299 = queryNorm
            0.78653926 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper describes recent initiatives to make standard library metadata models and structures available to the Semantic Web, including IFLA standards such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), and International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) along with the infrastructure that supports them. The FRBR Review Group is currently developing representations of FRAD and the entityrelationship model of FRBR in resource description framework (RDF) applications, using a combination of RDF, RDF Schema (RDFS), Simple Knowledge Organisation System (SKOS) and Web Ontology Language (OWL), cross-relating both models where appropriate. The ISBD/XML Task Group is investigating the representation of ISBD in RDF. The IFLA Namespaces project is developing an administrative and technical infrastructure to support such initiatives and encourage uptake of standards by other agencies. The paper describes similar initiatives with related external standards such as RDA - resource description and access, REICAT (the new Italian cataloguing rules) and CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM). The DCMI RDA Task Group is working with the Joint Steering Committee for RDA to develop Semantic Web representations of RDA structural elements, which are aligned with FRBR and FRAD, and controlled metadata content vocabularies. REICAT is also based on FRBR, and an object-oriented version of FRBR has been integrated with CRM, which itself has an RDF representation. CRM was initially based on the metadata needs of the museum community, and is now seeking extension to the archives community with the eventual aim of developing a model common to the main cultural information domains of archives, libraries and museums. The Vocabulary Mapping Framework (VMF) project has developed a Semantic Web tool to automatically generate mappings between metadata models from the information communities, including publishers. The tool is based on several standards, including CRM, FRAD, FRBR, MARC21 and RDA.

Object

CIDOC CRM

0.06821365 = product of:
  0.1364273 = sum of:
    0.1364273 = product of:
      0.2728546 = sum of:
        0.2728546 = weight(_text_:crm in 3948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2728546 = score(doc=3948,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.38785186 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487299 = queryNorm
            0.70350206 = fieldWeight in 3948, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3948)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper sets out to discuss the use of information extraction (IE), a natural language-processing (NLP) technique to assist "rich" semantic indexing of diverse archaeological text resources. The focus of the research is to direct a semantic-aware "rich" indexing of diverse natural language resources with properties capable of satisfying information retrieval from online publications and datasets associated with the Semantic Technologies for Archaeological Resources (STAR) project. Design/methodology/approach - The paper proposes use of the English Heritage extension (CRM-EH) of the standard core ontology in cultural heritage, CIDOC CRM, and exploitation of domain thesauri resources for driving and enhancing an Ontology-Oriented Information Extraction process. The process of semantic indexing is based on a rule-based Information Extraction technique, which is facilitated by the General Architecture of Text Engineering (GATE) toolkit and expressed by Java Annotation Pattern Engine (JAPE) rules. Findings - Initial results suggest that the combination of information extraction with knowledge resources and standard conceptual models is capable of supporting semantic-aware term indexing. Additional efforts are required for further exploitation of the technique and adoption of formal evaluation methods for assessing the performance of the method in measurable terms. Originality/value - The value of the paper lies in the semantic indexing of 535 unpublished online documents often referred to as "Grey Literature", from the Archaeological Data Service OASIS corpus (Online AccesS to the Index of archaeological investigationS), with respect to the CRM ontological concepts E49.Time Appellation and P19.Physical Object.

Object

CIDOC CRM

0.064496666 = product of:
  0.12899333 = sum of:
    0.12899333 = product of:
      0.38698 = sum of:
        0.38698 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.38698 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41313264 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487299 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.05968694 = product of:
  0.11937388 = sum of:
    0.11937388 = product of:
      0.23874776 = sum of:
        0.23874776 = weight(_text_:crm in 5179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23874776 = score(doc=5179,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38785186 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487299 = queryNorm
            0.6155643 = fieldWeight in 5179, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5179)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

CIDOC CRM

0.059074756 = product of:
  0.11814951 = sum of:
    0.11814951 = product of:
      0.23629902 = sum of:
        0.23629902 = weight(_text_:crm in 1917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23629902 = score(doc=1917,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.38785186 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487299 = queryNorm
            0.6092507 = fieldWeight in 1917, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1917)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The models in the FRBR family include ways to document names or terms for all entities defined in the models, with identification as the ultimate aim, i.e., to distinguish entities by unique appellations and to use the most reliable appellations for entities in a given context. The intention in this paper is to explore the interrelationships between these different models with regards to their treatment of names, identifiers and other appellation entities. The specialisation/generalisation structure of the appellation-related entities and the relationships and properties of these entities will be discussed. The paper also tries to clarify the potential confusion of identity itself in this context - when are we talking about an entity via its name, about the name itself, about the name citation in a document and when about a name of name? In FRBR(er), titles for group 1, names for group 2 and terms for group 3 entities are merely defined as attributes of these entities. This serves the basic requirement of associating the appellation (label) with the entity, but does not allow introducing attributes of these appellations or relationships between and among them. FRAD, completed a decade later, defined as entities name, identifier, and controlled access point. Clearly making the distinction between a bibliographic entity and its name is a significant step taken in FRAD. This permits the separate treatment of relationships between the persons, families, and corporate bodies themselves and those relationships which instead operate between their names or between the controlled access points based on those names. In FRSAD, the most recent model, two entities are defined, Thema and Nomen. Again, the bibliographic entity is distinguished from the full range of its appellations. The FRBRoo model expanded on the treatment of appellations and identifiers in CRM by modeling the identifier assignment process. In FRBRoo, F12 Name was defined but identified with the existing CRM entity E41 Appellation. Current development is concentrating on integrating FRAD and FRSAD concepts into FRBRoo, and this is putting a focus on naming and appellations, causing new classes and properties to be defined, and requiring a re-evaluation of some of the decisions previously made in FRBRoo. As naming and appellations are such a significant feature of the FRBR family of conceptual models, this work is an important step in towards the consolidation of the models into a single coherent statement of the bibliographic universe.

Object

CIDOC CRM

0.05116023 = product of:
  0.10232046 = sum of:
    0.10232046 = product of:
      0.20464092 = sum of:
        0.20464092 = weight(_text_:crm in 4105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20464092 = score(doc=4105,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38785186 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487299 = queryNorm
            0.5276265 = fieldWeight in 4105, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4105)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Drawings of The Florentine Painters project created the first online database of Florentine Renaissance drawings by applying Linked Open Data (LOD) techniques to a foundational text of the same name, first published by Bernard Berenson in 1903 (revised and expanded editions, 1938 and 1961). The goal was to make Berenson's catalog information-still an essential information resource today-available in a machine-readable format, allowing researchers to access the source content through open data services. This paper provides a technical overview of the methods and processes applied in the conversion of Berenson's catalog to LOD using the CIDOC-CRM ontology; it also discusses the different phases of the project, focusing on the challenges and issues of data transformation and publishing. The project was funded by the Samuel H. Kress Foundation and organized by Villa I Tatti, The Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies. Catalog: http://florentinedrawings.itatti.harvard.edu. Data Endpoint: http://data.itatti.harvard.edu.

0.05116023 = product of:
  0.10232046 = sum of:
    0.10232046 = product of:
      0.20464092 = sum of:
        0.20464092 = weight(_text_:crm in 5668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20464092 = score(doc=5668,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38785186 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487299 = queryNorm
            0.5276265 = fieldWeight in 5668, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5668)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Es liegt in der Natur des Menschen, Erfahrungen und Ideen in Wort und Schrift mit anderen teilen zu wollen. So produzieren wir jeden Tag gigantische Mengen an Texten, die in digitaler Form geteilt und abgelegt werden. The Radicati Group schätzt, dass 2017 täglich 269 Milliarden E-Mails versendet und empfangen werden. Hinzu kommen größtenteils unstrukturierte Daten wie Soziale Medien, Presse, Websites und firmeninterne Systeme, beispielsweise in Form von CRM-Software oder PDF-Dokumenten. Der weltweite Bestand an unstrukturierten Daten wächst so rasant, dass es kaum möglich ist, seinen Umfang zu quantifizieren. Der Versuch, eine belastbare Zahl zu recherchieren, führt unweigerlich zu diversen Artikeln, die den Anteil unstrukturierter Texte am gesamten Datenbestand auf 80% schätzen. Auch wenn nicht mehr einwandfrei nachvollziehbar ist, woher diese Zahl stammt, kann bei kritischer Reflexion unseres Tagesablaufs kaum bezweifelt werden, dass diese Daten von großer wirtschaftlicher Relevanz sind.

0.04514767 = product of:
  0.09029534 = sum of:
    0.09029534 = product of:
      0.270886 = sum of:
        0.270886 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.270886 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41313264 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487299 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Philosophisch-ethische Rezensionen vom 09.11.2019 (Jürgen Czogalla), Unter: https://philosophisch-ethische-rezensionen.de/rezension/Goedert1.html. In: B.I.T. online 23(2020) H.3, S.345-347 (W. Sühl-Strohmenger) [Unter: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b-i-t-online.de%2Fheft%2F2020-03-rezensionen.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iY3f_zNcvEjeZ6inHVnOK]. In: Open Password Nr. 805 vom 14.08.2020 (H.-C. Hobohm) [Unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzE0MywiOGI3NjZkZmNkZjQ1IiwwLDAsMTMxLDFd].

0.04263353 = product of:
  0.08526706 = sum of:
    0.08526706 = product of:
      0.17053412 = sum of:
        0.17053412 = weight(_text_:crm in 3963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17053412 = score(doc=3963,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38785186 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487299 = queryNorm
            0.4396888 = fieldWeight in 3963, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.9592175 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Die fortgesetzte Entwicklung des bibliographischen Datenmodells FRBROO steht auf der Agenda des Strategischen Plans der IFLA Cataloguing Section. Als Teil des CIDOC Conceptual Reference Models (CIDOC CRM; ISO 21127:2006, letzte Version: v.5.0.2.) können damit verschieden strukturierte Informationen aus dem Bereich des kulturellen Erbes integriert und ausgetauscht werden; durch FRBROO werden bibliographische Informationen eingebunden. Aufgrund sichtbarer Veränderungen in der Publikationspraxis sind die bisherigen Bibliothekskataloge mit ihrer bibliographischen Fixierung auf das Buch als zentrales zu erschließendes Element nicht mehr zeitgemäß. Eine umfassende Erschließung des kulturellen Erbes gemeinsam mit Museen und Archiven und deren "Objekten" und damit eine ontologisch fundierte Abbildung der in naher Zukunft komplett digital vorliegenden publikatorischen Vielfalt in kollaborativ gepflegten Katalogen wissenschaftlicher Bibliotheken gelingt nur, wenn zum einen der einzelne Text als "bibliographisches Objekt", was sowohl historische Quellen, fiktionale Werke als auch wissenschaftliche Aufsätze umfasst, formal und sachlich erschlossen wird und zum anderen das Ereignis als Ausgangspunkt der Erschließungsarbeit betrachtet wird. Zwei Folgerungen ergeben sich daraus: 1) Die semantischen Ebenen der Wissensrepräsentation nach Erwin Panofsky sollten um eine vierte Ebene erweitert werden, die als "acrossness" bezeichnet wird. 2) Die Aufgabe des wissenschaftlichen Bibliothekars sollte in einer intellektuellen Verwaltung der Neuerscheinungen, aber auch einer intellektuellen Durchdringung des eigenen Fachgebietes bestehen.