Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04071546 = product of:
  0.08143092 = sum of:
    0.08143092 = product of:
      0.16286184 = sum of:
        0.16286184 = weight(_text_:core in 46) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16286184 = score(doc=46,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.6313121 = fieldWeight in 46, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=46)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The term 'metadata' is becoming commonly used to refer to a variety of types of data which describe other data. A familiar example is bibliographic data, which describes a book or a serial article. Suggests that a routine definiton might be: 'metadata is data which describes attributes of a resource'. Gives some examples before looking at the Dublic Core, a simple response to the challenge of describing a wide range of network resources

Object

Dublin Core

0.04071546 = product of:
  0.08143092 = sum of:
    0.08143092 = product of:
      0.16286184 = sum of:
        0.16286184 = weight(_text_:core in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16286184 = score(doc=107,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.6313121 = fieldWeight in 107, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=107)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The term 'metadata' is becoming commonly used to refer to a variety of types of data which describe other data. A familiar example is bibliographic data, which describes a book or a serial article. Suggests that a rountine definition might be: 'Metadata is data which describes attributes of a resource'. Provides examples to expand on this before looking at the Dublin Core, a simple set of elements for describing a wide range of network resources

Object

Dublin Core

0.031973355 = product of:
  0.06394671 = sum of:
    0.06394671 = sum of:
      0.043185268 = weight(_text_:core in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043185268 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.1674019 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
      0.02076144 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02076144 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Google's December 2004 announcement of its intention to collaborate with five major research libraries - Harvard University, the University of Michigan, Stanford University, the University of Oxford, and the New York Public Library - to digitize and surface their print book collections in the Google searching universe has, predictably, stirred conflicting opinion, with some viewing the project as a welcome opportunity to enhance the visibility of library collections in new environments, and others wary of Google's prospective role as gateway to these collections. The project has been vigorously debated on discussion lists and blogs, with the participating libraries commonly referred to as "the Google 5". One point most observers seem to concede is that the questions raised by this initiative are both timely and significant. The Google Print Library Project (GPLP) has galvanized a long overdue, multi-faceted discussion about library print book collections. The print book is core to library identity and practice, but in an era of zero-sum budgeting, it is almost inevitable that print book budgets will decline as budgets for serials, digital resources, and other materials expand. As libraries re-allocate resources to accommodate changing patterns of user needs, print book budgets may be adversely impacted. Of course, the degree of impact will depend on a library's perceived mission. A public library may expect books to justify their shelf-space, with de-accession the consequence of minimal use. A national library, on the other hand, has a responsibility to the scholarly and cultural record and may seek to collect comprehensively within particular areas, with the attendant obligation to secure the long-term retention of its print book collections. The combination of limited budgets, changing user needs, and differences in library collection strategies underscores the need to think about a collective, or system-wide, print book collection - in particular, how can an inter-institutional system be organized to achieve goals that would be difficult, and/or prohibitively expensive, for any one library to undertake individually [4]? Mass digitization programs like GPLP cast new light on these and other issues surrounding the future of library print book collections, but at this early stage, it is light that illuminates only dimly. It will be some time before GPLP's implications for libraries and library print book collections can be fully appreciated and evaluated. But the strong interest and lively debate generated by this initiative suggest that some preliminary analysis - premature though it may be - would be useful, if only to undertake a rough mapping of the terrain over which GPLP potentially will extend. At the least, some early perspective helps shape interesting questions for the future, when the boundaries of GPLP become settled, workflows for producing and managing the digitized materials become systematized, and usage patterns within the GPLP framework begin to emerge.

Date

26.12.2011 14:08:22

0.01384096 = product of:
  0.02768192 = sum of:
    0.02768192 = product of:
      0.05536384 = sum of:
        0.05536384 = weight(_text_:22 in 127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05536384 = score(doc=127,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 127, 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=127)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Program. 30(1996) no.1, S.1-22

0.01384096 = product of:
  0.02768192 = sum of:
    0.02768192 = product of:
      0.05536384 = sum of:
        0.05536384 = weight(_text_:22 in 628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05536384 = score(doc=628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 628, 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=628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:36:13