Search (4301 results, page 1 of 216)

0.15430886 = product of:
  0.3086177 = sum of:
    0.3086177 = sum of:
      0.23032142 = weight(_text_:core in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.23032142 = score(doc=2408,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.8928101 = fieldWeight in 2408, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2408)
      0.0782963 = weight(_text_:22 in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0782963 = score(doc=2408,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2408, 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=2408)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper discuesses the goals and outcome of the OCLC/NCSA Metadata Workshop held March 1-3, 1995 in Dublin Ohio. The resulting proposed "Dublin Core" Metadata Elements Set is described briefly. An attempt is made to map the Dublin Core data elements to USMARC; problems and outstanding questions are noted.

Date

13. 1.2007 18:31:22

Object

Dublin core

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.43-58

0.15031722 = product of:
  0.30063444 = sum of:
    0.30063444 = sum of:
      0.25911155 = weight(_text_:core in 1087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.25911155 = score(doc=1087,freq=18.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          1.0044112 = fieldWeight in 1087, product of:
            4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
              18.0 = termFreq=18.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1087)
      0.04152288 = weight(_text_:22 in 1087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04152288 = score(doc=1087,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1087, 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=1087)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Core Standard for Rare Books, known as the DCRB Core standard, was approved by the Program for Cooperative Cataloging for use beginning in January 1999. Comparable to the core standards for other types of materials, the DCRB Core standard provides requirements for an intermediate level of bibliographic description for the cataloging of rare books. While the Core Standard for Books seems to have found a place in general cataloging practice, the DCRB Core standard appears to have met with resistance among rare book cataloging practitioners. This study investigates the extent to which such resistance exists by examining all of the DCRB Core records in the OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) Online Union Catalog (WorldCat) and the Research Libraries Croup Union Catalog (RLIN) databases that were created during the standard's first five years. The study analyzes the content of the records for adherence to the standard and investigates the ways in which the flexibility of the standard and cataloger's judgment augmented many records with more than the mandatory elements of description and access.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Object

DCRB Core standard

0.14284264 = product of:
  0.28568527 = sum of:
    0.28568527 = sum of:
      0.23032142 = weight(_text_:core in 903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.23032142 = score(doc=903,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.8928101 = fieldWeight in 903, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=903)
      0.05536384 = weight(_text_:22 in 903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05536384 = score(doc=903,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 903, 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=903)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Recently the view has developed that electronic resources require the same level of cataloguing as the physical resources found in libraries, with the effect that a number of guidelines for cataloguing Internet resources have appeared. Describes one such standard for resource description, the Dublin Core metadata set, the ongoing refinement of the metadata elements and the application of the Dublin Core metadata set

Object

Dublin Core

Source

Cataloguing Australia. 23(1997) nos.1/2, S.17-22

0.13688107 = product of:
  0.27376214 = sum of:
    0.27376214 = sum of:
      0.22531879 = weight(_text_:core in 2220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.22531879 = score(doc=2220,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.8734181 = fieldWeight in 2220, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2220)
      0.04844336 = weight(_text_:22 in 2220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04844336 = score(doc=2220,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2220, 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=2220)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Creation of more and better metadata, or resource descriptions, is the best means to solve the problems of massive recall and lack of precision associated with Internet information retrieval. Dublin Core Metadata workshops aim to develop the resource descriptions. Describes the 4th workshop held in Canberra March 1997 and the 5th held in Oct. 1997 in Helsinki. DC-4 dealt with element structure with qualifiers language, scheme and type; extensibility issues; and element refinement. DC-5 dealt with element refinement and stability; definition of sub-elements and resource types; and sharing of Dublin Core implementation experiences, one of which is the Nordic Metadata project. The Nordic countries are now well prepared to implement useful new tools built by the Internet metadata community

Object

Dublin Core

Source

Nordinfo Nytt. 1997, nos.3/4, S.10-22

0.12654331 = product of:
  0.25308663 = sum of:
    0.25308663 = sum of:
      0.21156374 = weight(_text_:core in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.21156374 = score(doc=1415,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.82009846 = fieldWeight in 1415, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1415)
      0.04152288 = weight(_text_:22 in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04152288 = score(doc=1415,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1415, 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=1415)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Domain analysis reveals the contours of knowledge in diverse discourse communities. The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) conferences represent the cutting edge of research in metadata for the digital age. Beak and Smiraglia (2013) discovered a shared epistemology revealed by co-citation perceptions of the domain, a common ontological base, social semantics, and a limited but focused intent. User groups did not emerge from that analysis, raising an interesting question about the content of core thematic extension versus a highly granular intension. We analyzed keywords from the titles by year to identify core and granular topics as they arose over time. The results showed that only 36 core keywords, e.g. "Dublin Core," "Metadata," "Linked Data," "Applications," etc. represents the domain's extension. However, there was much rich terminology among the granularity, e.g., "development," "description," "interoperability," "analysis," "applications," and "classification" and even "domain" pointed to the domain's intension.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.12526436 = product of:
  0.25052872 = sum of:
    0.25052872 = sum of:
      0.21592632 = weight(_text_:core in 153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.21592632 = score(doc=153,freq=18.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.83700943 = fieldWeight in 153, product of:
            4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
              18.0 = termFreq=18.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=153)
      0.0346024 = weight(_text_:22 in 153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0346024 = score(doc=153,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 153, 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=153)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In January 1999, the Program for Cooperative Cataloging approved the core bibliographic standard for rare books, called the DCRB Core standard. Like the other core standards, the DCRB Core provides the framework within which catalogers can create bibliographic records that are less than full, but are as reliable as full-level records in description and authorized headings. In the three years since its approval, there is little evidence that the standard has been widely used. This study reports the results of a survey sent to forty-three participants who indicated in a preliminary query that they do use the DCRB Core or that they have made the decision not to use it. In the thirty-seven surveys that were returned, only about 16% of the respondents said they have used the standard to create bibliographic records for their rare books. The libraries that do not use the core standard find it inferior or lacking in a number of ways. Several of those libraries, however, are planning to use the standard in the future or are seriously planning to investigate using it. Such intent may indicate that the time is approaching when more libraries will find reasons to implement the standard. One impetus may come from the findings of a recent survey of the special collections departments of member libraries of the Association of Research Libraries that emphasize the size of the backlogs in those departments. If faster accessibility to specific portions of the backlogs would benefit users more than having fulllevel cataloging, application of the DCRB Core standard could facilitate reducing those backlogs.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Object

DCRB Core standard

0.124987304 = product of:
  0.24997461 = sum of:
    0.24997461 = sum of:
      0.20153125 = weight(_text_:core in 6128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20153125 = score(doc=6128,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.7812089 = fieldWeight in 6128, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6128)
      0.04844336 = weight(_text_:22 in 6128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04844336 = score(doc=6128,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = 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)

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

Object

Dublin Core

Series

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

0.11732663 = product of:
  0.23465326 = sum of:
    0.23465326 = sum of:
      0.19313039 = weight(_text_:core in 3737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19313039 = score(doc=3737,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.74864405 = fieldWeight in 3737, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3737)
      0.04152288 = weight(_text_:22 in 3737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04152288 = score(doc=3737,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3737, 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=3737)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative currently defines a Dublin Core Application Profile as a set of specifications about the metadata design of a particular application or for a particular domain or community of users. The current approach to application profiles is summarized in the Singapore Framework for Application Profiles [SINGAPORE-FRAMEWORK] (see Figure 1). While the approach originally developed as a means of specifying customized applications based on the fifteen elements of the Dublin Core Element Set (e.g., Title, Date, Subject), it has evolved into a generic approach to creating metadata that meets specific local requirements while integrating coherently with other RDF-based metadata.

Object

Dublin Core Application Profiles

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

0.11148728 = product of:
  0.22297455 = sum of:
    0.22297455 = sum of:
      0.17453119 = weight(_text_:core in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17453119 = score(doc=637,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.67654675 = fieldWeight in 637, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=637)
      0.04844336 = weight(_text_:22 in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04844336 = score(doc=637,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = 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

Object

Dublic Core

0.10713197 = product of:
  0.21426395 = sum of:
    0.21426395 = sum of:
      0.17274107 = weight(_text_:core in 2634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17274107 = score(doc=2634,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.6696076 = fieldWeight in 2634, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2634)
      0.04152288 = weight(_text_:22 in 2634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04152288 = score(doc=2634,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2634, 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=2634)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This report introduces the Dublin Core Microformats (DCMF) project, a new way to use the DC element set within X/HTML. The DC microformats encode explicit semantic expressions in an X/HTML webpage, by using a specific list of terms for values of the attributes "rev" and "rel" for <a> and <link> elements, and "class" and "id" of other elements. Microformats can be easily processed by user agents and software, enabling a high level of interoperability. These characteristics are crucial for the growing number of social applications allowing users to participate in the Web 2.0 environment as information creators and consumers. This report reviews the origins of microformats; illustrates the coding of DC microformats using the Dublin Core Metadata Gen tool, and a Firefox extension for extraction and visualization; and discusses the benefits of creating Web services utilizing DC microformats.

Object

Dublin Core Microformats

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

0.10713197 = product of:
  0.21426395 = sum of:
    0.21426395 = sum of:
      0.17274107 = weight(_text_:core in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17274107 = score(doc=1347,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.6696076 = fieldWeight in 1347, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1347)
      0.04152288 = weight(_text_:22 in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04152288 = score(doc=1347,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1347, 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=1347)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Terminology registries (TRs) are a crucial element of the infrastructure required for resource discovery services, digital libraries, Linked Data, and semantic interoperability generally. They can make the content of knowledge organization systems (KOS) available both for human and machine access. The paper describes the attributes and functionality for a TR, based on a review of published literature, existing TRs, and a survey of experts. A domain model based on user tasks is constructed and a set of core metadata elements for use in TRs is proposed. Ideally, the TR should allow searching as well as browsing for a KOS, matching a user's search while also providing information about existing terminology services, accessible to both humans and machines. The issues surrounding metadata for KOS are also discussed, together with the rationale for different aspects and the importance of a core set of KOS metadata for future machine-based access; a possible core set of metadata elements is proposed. This is dealt with in terms of practical experience and in relation to the Dublin Core Application Profile.

Date

22. 8.2014 17:12:54

0.10657784 = product of:
  0.21315569 = sum of:
    0.21315569 = sum of:
      0.14395088 = weight(_text_:core in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14395088 = score(doc=4907,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.5580063 = fieldWeight in 4907, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4907)
      0.0692048 = weight(_text_:22 in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0692048 = score(doc=4907,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4907, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4907)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Draws on parallels between outsourcing in business and in libraries to examine the difficulties and implications of outsourcing the catalogue department. Examines why cataloguing, in particular, has received outsourcing attention. 2 major reasons emerge: cataloguing is a non core activity, and catalogue departments are troublesome

Source

Journal of academic librarianship. 22(1996) no.1, S.33-43

0.10657784 = product of:
  0.21315569 = sum of:
    0.21315569 = sum of:
      0.14395088 = weight(_text_:core in 2275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14395088 = score(doc=2275,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.5580063 = fieldWeight in 2275, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2275)
      0.0692048 = weight(_text_:22 in 2275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0692048 = score(doc=2275,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2275, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2275)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Bericht über den Workshop, der am 22. u. 23.6.98 in der SUB Göttingen stattfand

Object

Dublin core

0.10545276 = product of:
  0.21090552 = sum of:
    0.21090552 = sum of:
      0.17630312 = weight(_text_:core in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17630312 = score(doc=2651,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.6834154 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
      0.0346024 = weight(_text_:22 in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0346024 = score(doc=2651,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2651, 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=2651)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The digitized version of the only extant copy of Archimedes' key mathematical and scientific works contains over 6,500 images and 130 pages of transcriptions. Metadata is essential for managing, integrating and accessing these digital resources in the Web 2.0 environment. The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set meets many of our needs. It offers the needed flexibility and applicability to a variety of data sets containing different texts and images in a dynamic technical environment. The program team has continued to refine its data dictionary and elements based on the Dublin Core standard and feedback from the Dublin Core community since the 2006 Dublin Core Conference. This presentation cites the application and utility of the DCMI Standards during the final phase of this decade-long program. Since the 2006 conference, the amount of data has grown tenfold with new imaging techniques. Use of the DCMI Standards for integration across digital images and transcriptions will allow the hosting and integration of this data set and other cultural works across service providers, libraries and cultural institutions.

Object

Dublin Core

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

0.103593364 = sum of:
  0.067605644 = product of:
    0.20281692 = sum of:
      0.20281692 = weight(_text_:3a in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20281692 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.43304712 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4997, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4997)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.03598772 = product of:
    0.07197544 = sum of:
      0.07197544 = weight(_text_:core in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07197544 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.27900314 = fieldWeight in 4997, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4997)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

While classifications are heavily used to categorize web content, the evolution of the web foresees a more formal structure - ontology - which can serve this purpose. Ontologies are core artifacts of the Semantic Web which enable machines to use inference rules to conduct automated reasoning on data. Lightweight ontologies bridge the gap between classifications and ontologies. A lightweight ontology (LO) is an ontology representing a backbone taxonomy where the concept of the child node is more specific than the concept of the parent node. Formal lightweight ontologies can be generated from their informal ones. The key applications of formal lightweight ontologies are document classification, semantic search, and data integration. However, these applications suffer from the following problems: the disambiguation accuracy of the state of the art NLP tools used in generating formal lightweight ontologies from their informal ones; the lack of background knowledge needed for the formal lightweight ontologies; and the limitation of ontology reuse. In this dissertation, we propose a novel solution to these problems in formal lightweight ontologies; namely, faceted lightweight ontology (FLO). FLO is a lightweight ontology in which terms, present in each node label, and their concepts, are available in the background knowledge (BK), which is organized as a set of facets. A facet can be defined as a distinctive property of the groups of concepts that can help in differentiating one group from another. Background knowledge can be defined as a subset of a knowledge base, such as WordNet, and often represents a specific domain.

Content

PhD Dissertation at International Doctorate School in Information and Communication Technology. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fcore.ac.uk%2Fdownload%2Fpdf%2F150083013.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2n-qisNagpyT0lli_6QbAQ.

0.1018882 = sum of:
  0.081126764 = product of:
    0.2433803 = sum of:
      0.2433803 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2433803 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.43304712 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.02076144 = product of:
    0.04152288 = sum of:
      0.04152288 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04152288 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.

Date

8. 1.2013 10:22:32

0.097772196 = product of:
  0.19554439 = sum of:
    0.19554439 = sum of:
      0.16094199 = weight(_text_:core in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16094199 = score(doc=2649,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.62387 = fieldWeight in 2649, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2649)
      0.0346024 = weight(_text_:22 in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0346024 = score(doc=2649,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2649, 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=2649)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

OCLC's Crosswalk Web Service (Godby, Smith and Childress, 2008) formalizes the notion of crosswalk, as defined in Gill,et al. (n.d.), by hiding technical details and permitting the semantic equivalences to emerge as the centerpiece. One outcome is that metadata experts, who are typically not programmers, can enter the translation logic into a spreadsheet that can be automatically converted into executable code. In this paper, we describe the implementation of the Dublin Core Terms application profile in the management of crosswalks involving MARC. A crosswalk that encodes an application profile extends the typical format with two columns: one that annotates the namespace to which an element belongs, and one that annotates a 'broader-narrower' relation between a pair of elements, such as Dublin Core coverage and Dublin Core Terms spatial. This information is sufficient to produce scripts written in OCLC's Semantic Equivalence Expression Language (or Seel), which are called from the Crosswalk Web Service to generate production-grade translations. With its focus on elements that can be mixed, matched, added, and redefined, the application profile (Heery and Patel, 2000) is a natural fit with the translation model of the Crosswalk Web Service, which attempts to achieve interoperability by mapping one pair of elements at a time.

Object

Dublin Core

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

0.09547374 = product of:
  0.19094747 = sum of:
    0.19094747 = sum of:
      0.14250411 = weight(_text_:core in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14250411 = score(doc=2631,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.5523981 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
      0.04844336 = weight(_text_:22 in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04844336 = score(doc=2631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2631, 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=2631)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A technique for converting Library of Congress Subject Headings MARCXML to Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) RDF is described. Strengths of the SKOS vocabulary are highlighted, as well as possible points for extension, and the integration of other semantic web vocabularies such as Dublin Core. An application for making the vocabulary available as linked data on the Web is also described.

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

0.09527188 = product of:
  0.19054376 = sum of:
    0.19054376 = sum of:
      0.16286184 = weight(_text_:core in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16286184 = score(doc=3271,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.6313121 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
      0.02768192 = weight(_text_:22 in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02768192 = score(doc=3271,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper we investigate the scattering of journals and literature obsolescence reflected in more than 137,000 document delivery requests submitted to a national document delivery service. We first summarize the major findings of the study with regards to the performance of the service. We then identify the "core" journals from which article requests were satisfied and address the following research questions: (a) Does the distribution of (core) journals conform to the Bradford's Law of Scattering? (b) Is there a relationship between usage of journals and impact factors, journals with high impact factors being used more often than the rest? (c) Is there a relationship between usage of journals and total citation counts, journals with high total citation counts being used more often than the rest? (d) What is the median age of use (half-life) of requested articles in general? (e) Do requested articles that appear in core journals get obsolete more slowly? (f) Is there a relationship between obsolescence and journal impact factors, journals with high impact factors being obsolete more slowly? (g) Is there a relationship between obsolescence and total citation counts, journals with high total citation counts being obsolete more slowly? Based an the analysis of findings, we found that the distribution of highly and moderately used journal titles conform to Bradford's Law. The median age of use was 8 years for all requested articles. Ninety percent of the articles requested were 21 years of age or younger. Articles that appeared in 168 core journal titles seem to get obsolete slightly more slowly than those of all titles. We observed no statistically significant correlations between the frequency of journal use and ISI journal impact factors, and between the frequency of journal use and ISI- (Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, PA) cited half-lives for the most heavily used 168 core journal titles. There was a weak correlation between usage of journals and ISI-reported total citation counts. No statistically significant relationship was found between median age of use and journal impact factors and between median age of use and total citation counts. There was a weak negative correlation between ISI journal impact factors and cited half-lives of 168 core journals, and a weak correlation between ISI citation halflives and use half-lives of core journals. No correlation was found between cited half-lives of 168 core journals and their corresponding total citation counts as reported by ISI. Findings of the current study are discussed along with those of other studies.

Date

20. 3.2005 10:54:22

0.09001261 = product of:
  0.18002522 = sum of:
    0.18002522 = sum of:
      0.1523433 = weight(_text_:core in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1523433 = score(doc=1236,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.5905384 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
      0.02768192 = weight(_text_:22 in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02768192 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Dublin Core is often presented as a modern form of catalog card -- a set of elements (and now qualifiers) that describe resources in a complete package. Sometimes it is proposed as an exchange format for sharing records among multiple collections. The founding principle that "every element is optional and repeatable" reinforces the notion that a Dublin Core description is to be taken as a whole. This paper, in contrast, is based on a much different premise: Dublin Core is a language. More precisely, it is a small language for making a particular class of statements about resources. Like natural languages, it has a vocabulary of word-like terms, the two classes of which -- elements and qualifiers -- function within statements like nouns and adjectives; and it has a syntax for arranging elements and qualifiers into statements according to a simple pattern. Whenever tourists order a meal or ask directions in an unfamiliar language, considerate native speakers will spontaneously limit themselves to basic words and simple sentence patterns along the lines of "I am so-and-so" or "This is such-and-such". Linguists call this pidginization. In such situations, a small phrase book or translated menu can be most helpful. By analogy, today's Web has been called an Internet Commons where users and information providers from a wide range of scientific, commercial, and social domains present their information in a variety of incompatible data models and description languages. In this context, Dublin Core presents itself as a metadata pidgin for digital tourists who must find their way in this linguistically diverse landscape. Its vocabulary is small enough to learn quickly, and its basic pattern is easily grasped. It is well-suited to serve as an auxiliary language for digital libraries. This grammar starts by defining terms. It then follows a 200-year-old tradition of English grammar teaching by focusing on the structure of single statements. It concludes by looking at the growing dictionary of Dublin Core vocabulary terms -- its registry, and at how statements can be used to build the metadata equivalent of paragraphs and compositions -- the application profile.

Date

26.12.2011 14:01:22

Object

Dublin Core