Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.035037026 = product of:
  0.10511108 = sum of:
    0.10511108 = weight(_text_:objects in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10511108 = score(doc=4132,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25313336 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047625583 = queryNorm
        0.41523993 = fieldWeight in 4132, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4132)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

For most museums, online access to their collections is still a challenge. In museum databases, descriptions include descriptive metadata, along with other information that is often irrelevant to the public. Information that would help users to navigate from an object to one sharing similar characteristics is often absent. The conceptual model developed by the International Committee for Documentation, CIDOC-CRM, which provides a formal structure for linking museum objects, is still not widely adopted by institutions, due to its complexity. This project aims to provide a simpler model that could be more easily adopted. For this phase of the project, a sample of 266 Canadian museums with humanities collections (archaeology, ethnology, history, fine and decorative arts) was identified. It is composed of every museum that, during the fall of 2016, was offering to the public at least a part of its collection online. From each museum, a minimum of ten objects was selected, ensuring that the variety of the collections was represented, and extracted the metadata used in the object descriptions. This inventory, which aimed to provide a comprehensive picture of what museums already offer in terms of metadata associated to their online collections, exposed a lack of standardization and interoperability.

0.0297299 = product of:
  0.0891897 = sum of:
    0.0891897 = weight(_text_:objects in 2107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0891897 = score(doc=2107,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25313336 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047625583 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 2107, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2107)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.02477492 = product of:
  0.07432476 = sum of:
    0.07432476 = weight(_text_:objects in 3250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07432476 = score(doc=3250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25313336 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047625583 = queryNorm
        0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 3250, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3250)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper reports on a research project that compared two different approaches for the indexing of ordinary images representing common objects: traditional indexing with controlled vocabulary and free indexing with uncontrolled vocabulary. We also compared image retrieval within two contexts: a monolingual context where the language of the query is the same as the indexing language and, secondly, a multilingual context where the language of the query is different from the indexing language. As a means of comparison in evaluating the performance of each indexing form, a simulation of the retrieval process involving 30 images was performed with 60 participants. A questionnaire was also submitted to participants in order to gather information with regard to the retrieval process and performance. The results of the retrieval simulation confirm that the retrieval is more effective and more satisfactory for the searcher when the images are indexed with the approach combining the controlled and uncontrolled vocabularies. The results also indicate that the indexing approach with controlled vocabulary is more efficient (queries needed to retrieve an image) than the uncontrolled vocabulary indexing approach. However, no significant differences in terms of temporal efficiency (time required to retrieve an image) was observed. Finally, the comparison of the two linguistic contexts reveal that the retrieval is more effective and more efficient (queries needed to retrieve an image) in the monolingual context rather than the multilingual context. Furthermore, image searchers are more satisfied when the retrieval is done in a monolingual context rather than a multilingual context.

0.019819934 = product of:
  0.0594598 = sum of:
    0.0594598 = weight(_text_:objects in 3945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0594598 = score(doc=3945,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25313336 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047625583 = queryNorm
        0.23489517 = fieldWeight in 3945, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3945)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - This research project aims to provide a new visual representation of the Artefacts Canada digital collection, as well as a means for users to browse this content. Artefacts Canada Humanities is a database containing approximately 3.5 million records describing the different collections of Canadian museums. Design/methodology/approach - A four-step methodology was adopted for the development of the faceted taxonomy model. First, a best practice review consisting of an extensive analysis of existing terminology standards in museum communities and public web interfaces of large cultural organizations was performed. The second step of the methodology entailed a domain analysis; this involved extracting and comparing relevant concepts from terminological authoritative sources. The third step proceeded to term clustering and entity listing,which involved the breaking-up of the taxonomy domains into potential facets. An incremental user testing was also realized in order to validate and refine the taxonomy components (facets, values, and relationships). Findings - The project resulted in a bilingual and expandable vocabulary structure that will further be used to describe the Artefacts Canada database records. The new taxonomy simplifies the representation of complex content by grouping objects into similar facets to classify all records of the Artefacts Canada database. The user-friendly bilingual taxonomy provides worldwide visitors with the means to better access Canadian virtual museum collections. Originality/value - Few methodological tools are available for museums which wish to adopt a faceted approach in the development of their web sites. For practitioners, the methodology developed within this project is a direct contribution to support web site development of large cultural organizations.

0.019819934 = product of:
  0.0594598 = sum of:
    0.0594598 = weight(_text_:objects in 3946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0594598 = score(doc=3946,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25313336 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047625583 = queryNorm
        0.23489517 = fieldWeight in 3946, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3946)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper seeks to examine image retrieval within two different contexts: a monolingual context where the language of the query is the same as the indexing language and a multilingual context where the language of the query is different from the indexing language. The study also aims to compare two different approaches for the indexing of ordinary images representing common objects: traditional image indexing with the use of a controlled vocabulary and free image indexing using uncontrolled vocabulary. Design/methodology/approach - This research uses three data collection methods. An analysis of the indexing terms was employed in order to examine the multiplicity of term types assigned to images. A simulation of the retrieval process involving a set of 30 images was performed with 60 participants. The quantification of the retrieval performance of each indexing approach was based on the usability measures, that is, effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction of the user. Finally, a questionnaire was used to gather information on searcher satisfaction during and after the retrieval process. Findings - The results of this research are twofold. The analysis of indexing terms associated with all the 3,950 images provides a comprehensive description of the characteristics of the four non-combined indexing forms used for the study. Also, the retrieval simulation results offers information about the relative performance of the six indexing forms (combined and non-combined) in terms of their effectiveness, efficiency (temporal and human) and the image searcher's satisfaction. Originality/value - The findings of the study suggest that, in the near future, the information systems could benefit from allowing an increased coexistence of controlled vocabularies and uncontrolled vocabularies, resulting from collaborative image tagging, for example, and giving the users the possibility to dynamically participate in the image-indexing process, in a more user-centred way.

0.006452609 = product of:
  0.019357827 = sum of:
    0.019357827 = product of:
      0.038715653 = sum of:
        0.038715653 = weight(_text_:22 in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038715653 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16677667 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047625583 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2264, 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=2264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0053771744 = product of:
  0.016131522 = sum of:
    0.016131522 = product of:
      0.032263044 = sum of:
        0.032263044 = weight(_text_:22 in 1374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032263044 = score(doc=1374,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16677667 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047625583 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1374, 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=1374)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

3. 9.2014 19:22:07

0.0053771744 = product of:
  0.016131522 = sum of:
    0.016131522 = product of:
      0.032263044 = sum of:
        0.032263044 = weight(_text_:22 in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032263044 = score(doc=2834,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16677667 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047625583 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2834, 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=2834)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Knowledge organization. 43(2016) no.1, S.22-34