Search (146 results, page 1 of 8)

  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  1. Franklin, R.A.: Re-inventing subject access for the semantic web (2003) 0.04 
    0.041955378 = product of:
  0.083910756 = sum of:
    0.083910756 = sum of:
      0.041640874 = weight(_text_:search in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041640874 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.230407 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
      0.04226988 = weight(_text_:22 in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04226988 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    First generation scholarly research on the Web lacked a firm system of authority control. Second generation Web research is beginning to model subject access with library science principles of bibliographic control and cataloguing. Harnessing the Web and organising the intellectual content with standards and controlled vocabulary provides precise search and retrieval capability, increasing relevance and efficient use of technology. Dublin Core metadata standards permit a full evaluation and cataloguing of Web resources appropriate to highly specific research needs and discovery. Current research points to a type of structure based on a system of faceted classification. This system allows the semantic and syntactic relationships to be defined. Controlled vocabulary, such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings, can be assigned, not in a hierarchical structure, but rather as descriptive facets of relating concepts. Web design features such as this are adding value to discovery and filtering out data that lack authority. The system design allows for scalability and extensibility, two technical features that are integral to future development of the digital library and resource discovery.
    Date
    30.12.2008 18:22:46
  2. Renear, A.H.; Wickett, K.M.; Urban, R.J.; Dubin, D.; Shreeves, S.L.: Collection/item metadata relationships (2008) 0.04 
    0.041955378 = product of:
  0.083910756 = sum of:
    0.083910756 = sum of:
      0.041640874 = weight(_text_:search in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041640874 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.230407 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
      0.04226988 = weight(_text_:22 in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04226988 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2623, 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=2623)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Contemporary retrieval systems, which search across collections, usually ignore collection-level metadata. Alternative approaches, exploiting collection-level information, will require an understanding of the various kinds of relationships that can obtain between collection-level and item-level metadata. This paper outlines the problem and describes a project that is developing a logic-based framework for classifying collection/item metadata relationships. This framework will support (i) metadata specification developers defining metadata elements, (ii) metadata creators describing objects, and (iii) system designers implementing systems that take advantage of collection-level metadata. We present three examples of collection/item metadata relationship categories, attribute/value-propagation, value-propagation, and value-constraint and show that even in these simple cases a precise formulation requires modal notions in addition to first-order logic. These formulations are related to recent work in information retrieval and ontology evaluation.
    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
  3. Heidorn, P.B.; Wei, Q.: Automatic metadata extraction from museum specimen labels (2008) 0.03 
    0.034962818 = product of:
  0.069925636 = sum of:
    0.069925636 = sum of:
      0.03470073 = weight(_text_:search in 2624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03470073 = score(doc=2624,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 2624, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2624)
      0.035224903 = weight(_text_:22 in 2624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035224903 = score(doc=2624,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2624, 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=2624)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper describes the information properties of museum specimen labels and machine learning tools to automatically extract Darwin Core (DwC) and other metadata from these labels processed through Optical Character Recognition (OCR). The DwC is a metadata profile describing the core set of access points for search and retrieval of natural history collections and observation databases. Using the HERBIS Learning System (HLS) we extract 74 independent elements from these labels. The automated text extraction tools are provided as a web service so that users can reference digital images of specimens and receive back an extended Darwin Core XML representation of the content of the label. This automated extraction task is made more difficult by the high variability of museum label formats, OCR errors and the open class nature of some elements. In this paper we introduce our overall system architecture, and variability robust solutions including, the application of Hidden Markov and Naïve Bayes machine learning models, data cleaning, use of field element identifiers, and specialist learning models. The techniques developed here could be adapted to any metadata extraction situation with noisy text and weakly ordered elements.
    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
  4. White, M.: ¬The value of taxonomies, thesauri and metadata in enterprise search (2016) 0.03 
    0.03127882 = product of:
  0.06255764 = sum of:
    0.06255764 = product of:
      0.12511528 = sum of:
        0.12511528 = weight(_text_:search in 2964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12511528 = score(doc=2964,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051997773 = queryNorm
            0.69228697 = fieldWeight in 2964, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2964)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Although the technical, mathematical and linguistic principles of search date back to the early 1960s and enterprise search applications have been commercially available since the 1980s; it is only since the launch of Microsoft SharePoint 2010 and the integration of the Apache Lucene and Solr projects in 2010 that there has been a wider adoption of enterprise search applications. Surveys carried out over the last five years indicate that although enterprises accept that search applications are essential in locating information, there has not been any significant investment in search teams to support these applications. Where taxonomies, thesauri and metadata have been used to improve the search user interface and enhance the search experience, the indications are that levels of search satisfaction are significantly higher. The challenges faced by search managers in developing and maintaining these tools include a lack of published research on the use of these tools and difficulty in recruiting search team members with the requisite skills and experience. There would seem to be an important and immediate opportunity to bring together the research, knowledge organization and enterprise search communities to explore how good practice in the use of taxonomies, thesauri and metadata in enterprise search can be established, enhanced and promoted.
  5. Bogaard, T.; Hollink, L.; Wielemaker, J.; Ossenbruggen, J. van; Hardman, L.: Metadata categorization for identifying search patterns in a digital library (2019) 0.03 
    0.030051714 = product of:
  0.060103428 = sum of:
    0.060103428 = product of:
      0.120206855 = sum of:
        0.120206855 = weight(_text_:search in 5281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.120206855 = score(doc=5281,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051997773 = queryNorm
            0.66512775 = fieldWeight in 5281, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose For digital libraries, it is useful to understand how users search in a collection. Investigating search patterns can help them to improve the user interface, collection management and search algorithms. However, search patterns may vary widely in different parts of a collection. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how to identify these search patterns within a well-curated historical newspaper collection using the existing metadata. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyzed search logs combined with metadata records describing the content of the collection, using this metadata to create subsets in the logs corresponding to different parts of the collection. Findings The study shows that faceted search is more prevalent than non-faceted search in terms of number of unique queries, time spent, clicks and downloads. Distinct search patterns are observed in different parts of the collection, corresponding to historical periods, geographical regions or subject matter. Originality/value First, this study provides deeper insights into search behavior at a fine granularity in a historical newspaper collection, by the inclusion of the metadata in the analysis. Second, it demonstrates how to use metadata categorization as a way to analyze distinct search patterns in a collection.
  6. Jimenez, V.O.R.: Nuevas perspectivas para la catalogacion : metadatos ver MARC (1999) 0.03 
    0.029889323 = product of:
  0.059778646 = sum of:
    0.059778646 = product of:
      0.11955729 = sum of:
        0.11955729 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11955729 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051997773 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 5743, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5743)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    30. 3.2002 19:45:22
    Source
    Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.2, S.198-219
  7. Andresen, L.: Metadata in Denmark (2000) 0.03 
    0.028179923 = product of:
  0.056359846 = sum of:
    0.056359846 = product of:
      0.11271969 = sum of:
        0.11271969 = weight(_text_:22 in 4899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11271969 = score(doc=4899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051997773 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4899, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4899)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    16. 7.2000 20:58:22
  8. MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications (2004) 0.03 
    0.028179923 = product of:
  0.056359846 = sum of:
    0.056359846 = product of:
      0.11271969 = sum of:
        0.11271969 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11271969 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051997773 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1
  9. What is Schema.org? (2011) 0.03 
    0.025499722 = product of:
  0.050999444 = sum of:
    0.050999444 = product of:
      0.10199889 = sum of:
        0.10199889 = weight(_text_:search in 4437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10199889 = score(doc=4437,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051997773 = queryNorm
            0.5643796 = fieldWeight in 4437, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4437)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This site provides a collection of schemas, i.e., html tags, that webmasters can use to markup their pages in ways recognized by major search providers. Search engines including Bing, Google and Yahoo! rely on this markup to improve the display of search results, making it easier for people to find the right web pages. Many sites are generated from structured data, which is often stored in databases. When this data is formatted into HTML, it becomes very difficult to recover the original structured data. Many applications, especially search engines, can benefit greatly from direct access to this structured data. On-page markup enables search engines to understand the information on web pages and provide richer search results in order to make it easier for users to find relevant information on the web. Markup can also enable new tools and applications that make use of the structure. A shared markup vocabulary makes easier for webmasters to decide on a markup schema and get the maximum benefit for their efforts. So, in the spirit of sitemaps.org, Bing, Google and Yahoo! have come together to provide a shared collection of schemas that webmasters can use.
  10. Moen, W.E.: ¬The metadata approach to accessing government information (2001) 0.02 
    0.024657432 = product of:
  0.049314864 = sum of:
    0.049314864 = product of:
      0.09862973 = sum of:
        0.09862973 = weight(_text_:22 in 4407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09862973 = score(doc=4407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051997773 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4407, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    28. 3.2002 9:22:34
  11. MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications (2004) 0.02 
    0.024657432 = product of:
  0.049314864 = sum of:
    0.049314864 = product of:
      0.09862973 = sum of:
        0.09862973 = weight(_text_:22 in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09862973 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051997773 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7196, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7196)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1
  12. MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications part 2 (2004) 0.02 
    0.024657432 = product of:
  0.049314864 = sum of:
    0.049314864 = product of:
      0.09862973 = sum of:
        0.09862973 = weight(_text_:22 in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09862973 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051997773 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2841, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2841)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2
  13. 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 (2008) 0.02 
    0.024473973 = product of:
  0.048947945 = sum of:
    0.048947945 = sum of:
      0.024290511 = weight(_text_:search in 2668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024290511 = score(doc=2668,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.1344041 = fieldWeight in 2668, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2668)
      0.024657432 = weight(_text_:22 in 2668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024657432 = score(doc=2668,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2668, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2668)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Carol Jean Godby, Devon Smith, Eric Childress: Encoding Application Profiles in a Computational Model of the Crosswalk. - Maria Elisabete Catarino, Ana Alice Baptista: Relating Folksonomies with Dublin Core. - Ed Summers, Antoine Isaac, Clay Redding, Dan Krech: LCSH, SKOS and Linked Data. - Xia Lin, Jiexun Li, Xiaohua Zhou: Theme Creation for Digital Collections. - Boris Lauser, Gudrun Johannsen, Caterina Caracciolo, Willem Robert van Hage, Johannes Keizer, Philipp Mayr: Comparing Human and Automatic Thesaurus Mapping Approaches in the Agricultural Domain. - P. Bryan Heidorn, Qin Wei: Automatic Metadata Extraction From Museum Specimen Labels. - Stuart Allen Sutton, Diny Golder: Achievement Standards Network (ASN): An Application Profile for Mapping K-12 Educational Resources to Achievement Standards. - Allen H. Renear, Karen M. Wickett, Richard J. Urban, David Dubin, Sarah L. Shreeves: Collection/Item Metadata Relationships. - Seth van Hooland, Yves Bontemps, Seth Kaufman: Answering the Call for more Accountability: Applying Data Profiling to Museum Metadata. - Thomas Margaritopoulos, Merkourios Margaritopoulos, Ioannis Mavridis, Athanasios Manitsaris: A Conceptual Framework for Metadata Quality Assessment. - Miao Chen, Xiaozhong Liu, Jian Qin: Semantic Relation Extraction from Socially-Generated Tags: A Methodology for Metadata Generation. - Hak Lae Kim, Simon Scerri, John G. Breslin, Stefan Decker, Hong Gee Kim: The State of the Art in Tag Ontologies: A Semantic Model for Tagging and Folksonomies. - Martin Malmsten: Making a Library Catalogue Part of the Semantic Web. - Philipp Mayr, Vivien Petras: Building a Terminology Network for Search: The KoMoHe Project. - Michael Panzer: Cool URIs for the DDC: Towards Web-scale Accessibility of a Large Classification System. - Barbara Levergood, Stefan Farrenkopf, Elisabeth Frasnelli: The Specification of the Language of the Field and Interoperability: Cross-language Access to Catalogues and Online Libraries (CACAO)
  14. Zhang, J.; Dimitroff, A.: Internet search engines' response to Metadata Dublin Core implementation (2005) 0.02 
    0.024290511 = product of:
  0.048581023 = sum of:
    0.048581023 = product of:
      0.097162046 = sum of:
        0.097162046 = weight(_text_:search in 4652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097162046 = score(doc=4652,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051997773 = queryNorm
            0.5376164 = fieldWeight in 4652, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  15. Broughton, V.: Automatic metadata generation : Digital resource description without human intervention (2007) 0.02 
    0.02113494 = product of:
  0.04226988 = sum of:
    0.04226988 = product of:
      0.08453976 = sum of:
        0.08453976 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08453976 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051997773 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 9.2007 15:41:14
  16. Perkins, M.: Why don't search engines work better? (1997) 0.02 
    0.0210362 = product of:
  0.0420724 = sum of:
    0.0420724 = product of:
      0.0841448 = sum of:
        0.0841448 = weight(_text_:search in 753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0841448 = score(doc=753,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051997773 = queryNorm
            0.46558946 = fieldWeight in 753, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=753)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Despite the proliferation of new search engines and improvements to existing ones, their use with the WWW continues to produce innumerable false hits. The reason for this is that HTML is mainly a presentation tool, and does a fairly poor job of describing the contents of a document while search engines are a long way from artificial intelligence. The use of SGML would ease the problem considerably, but is much more complex and time consuming to learn to be of general use. The alternative 'metadata' approach is proving slow to get off the ground. Researchers are investigating these and various other lines of enquiry
  17. Revelli, C.: Integrare o sostituire? : Un dilemma per la norme catalografiche (1997) 0.02 
    0.0210362 = product of:
  0.0420724 = sum of:
    0.0420724 = product of:
      0.0841448 = sum of:
        0.0841448 = weight(_text_:search in 1624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0841448 = score(doc=1624,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051997773 = queryNorm
            0.46558946 = fieldWeight in 1624, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1624)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Discusses a range of professional librarians' opinions on the urgent need either to adopt or replace the current cataloguing rules, a theme closely linked to the identity crisis facing libraries and librarians in the online electronic era. Topics examined include: Gorman and Oddy's views on restructuring AACR principles; the 13 metadata elements contained in the Dublin Core document (1995); catalogue search by known item; keyword search versus subject search; and the US Library of Congress's Program for cooperation cataloging
  18. Pope, J.T.; Holley, R.P.: Google Book Search and metadata (2011) 0.02 
    0.0210362 = product of:
  0.0420724 = sum of:
    0.0420724 = product of:
      0.0841448 = sum of:
        0.0841448 = weight(_text_:search in 1887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0841448 = score(doc=1887,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051997773 = queryNorm
            0.46558946 = fieldWeight in 1887, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1887)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article summarizes published documents on metadata provided by Google for books scanned as part of the Google Book Search (GBS) project and provides suggestions for improvement. The faulty, misleading, and confusing metadata in current Google records can pose potentially serious problems for users of GBS. Google admits that it took data, which proved to be inaccurate, from many sources and is attempting to correct errors. Some argue that metadata is not needed with keyword searching; but optical character recognition (OCR) errors, synonym control, and materials in foreign languages make reliable metadata a requirement for academic researchers. The authors recommend that users should be able to submit error reports to Google to correct faulty metadata.
    Object
    Google Book Search
  19. Henshaw, R.; Valauskas, E.J.: Metadata as a catalyst: : experiments with metadata and search engines in the Internet journal, First Monday (2001) 0.02 
    0.020820437 = product of:
  0.041640874 = sum of:
    0.041640874 = product of:
      0.08328175 = sum of:
        0.08328175 = weight(_text_:search in 7098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08328175 = score(doc=7098,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051997773 = queryNorm
            0.460814 = fieldWeight in 7098, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7098)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  20. Roux, M.: Metadata for search engines : what can be learned from e-Sciences? (2012) 0.02 
    0.020820437 = product of:
  0.041640874 = sum of:
    0.041640874 = product of:
      0.08328175 = sum of:
        0.08328175 = weight(_text_:search in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08328175 = score(doc=96,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051997773 = queryNorm
            0.460814 = fieldWeight in 96, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=96)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    E-sciences are data-intensive sciences that make a large use of the Web to share, collect, and process data. In this context, primary scientific data is becoming a new challenging issue as data must be extensively described (1) to account for empiric conditions and results that allow interpretation and/or analyses and (2) to be understandable by computers used for data storage and information retrieval. With this respect, metadata is a focal point whatever it is considered from the point of view of the user to visualize and exploit data as well as this of the search tools to find and retrieve information. Numerous disciplines are concerned with the issues of describing complex observations and addressing pertinent knowledge. In this paper, similarities and differences in data description and exploration strategies among disciplines in e-sciences are examined.
    Footnote
    Vgl.: http://www.igi-global.com/book/next-generation-search-engines/64420.
    Source
    Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 133
  • el 13
  • s 7
  • m 6
  • b 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications