Search (17 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  1. Belém, F.M.; Almeida, J.M.; Gonçalves, M.A.: ¬A survey on tag recommendation methods : a review (2017) 0.06 
    0.064082384 = product of:
  0.12816477 = sum of:
    0.12816477 = sum of:
      0.09392358 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09392358 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.320393 = fieldWeight in 3524, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3524)
      0.034241177 = weight(_text_:22 in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034241177 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3524, 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=3524)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Tags (keywords freely assigned by users to describe web content) have become highly popular on Web 2.0 applications, because of the strong stimuli and easiness for users to create and describe their own content. This increase in tag popularity has led to a vast literature on tag recommendation methods. These methods aim at assisting users in the tagging process, possibly increasing the quality of the generated tags and, consequently, improving the quality of the information retrieval (IR) services that rely on tags as data sources. Regardless of the numerous and diversified previous studies on tag recommendation, to our knowledge, no previous work has summarized and organized them into a single survey article. In this article, we propose a taxonomy for tag recommendation methods, classifying them according to the target of the recommendations, their objectives, exploited data sources, and underlying techniques. Moreover, we provide a critical overview of these methods, pointing out their advantages and disadvantages. Finally, we describe the main open challenges related to the field, such as tag ambiguity, cold start, and evaluation issues.
    Date
    16.11.2017 13:30:22
  2. Peters, I.; Stock, W.G.: Power tags in information retrieval (2010) 0.03 
    0.033207003 = product of:
  0.066414006 = sum of:
    0.066414006 = product of:
      0.13282801 = sum of:
        0.13282801 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13282801 = score(doc=865,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.45310414 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Many Web 2.0 services (including Library 2.0 catalogs) make use of folksonomies. The purpose of this paper is to cut off all tags in the long tail of a document-specific tag distribution. The remaining tags at the beginning of a tag distribution are considered power tags and form a new, additional search option in information retrieval systems. Design/methodology/approach - In a theoretical approach the paper discusses document-specific tag distributions (power law and inverse-logistic shape), the development of such distributions (Yule-Simon process and shuffling theory) and introduces search tags (besides the well-known index tags) as a possibility for generating tag distributions. Findings - Search tags are compatible with broad and narrow folksonomies and with all knowledge organization systems (e.g. classification systems and thesauri), while index tags are only applicable in broad folksonomies. Based on these findings, the paper presents a sketch of an algorithm for mining and processing power tags in information retrieval systems. Research limitations/implications - This conceptual approach is in need of empirical evaluation in a concrete retrieval system. Practical implications - Power tags are a new search option for retrieval systems to limit the amount of hits. Originality/value - The paper introduces power tags as a means for enhancing the precision of search results in information retrieval systems that apply folksonomies, e.g. catalogs in Library 2.0environments.
  3. Alemu, G.: ¬A theory of metadata enriching and filtering (2016) 0.02 
    0.018784717 = product of:
  0.037569433 = sum of:
    0.037569433 = product of:
      0.07513887 = sum of:
        0.07513887 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 5068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07513887 = score(doc=5068,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.2563144 = fieldWeight in 5068, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5068)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper presents a new theory of metadata enriching and filtering. The theory emerged from a rigorous grounded theory data analysis of 57 in-depth interviews with metadata experts, library and information science researchers, librarians as well as academic library users (G. Alemu, A Theory of Digital Library Metadata: The Emergence of Enriching and Filtering, University of Portsmouth PhD thesis, Portsmouth, 2014). Partly due to the novelty of Web 2.0 approaches and mainly due to the absence of foundational theories to underpin socially constructed metadata approaches, this research adapted a social constructivist philosophical approach and a constructivist grounded theory method (K.?Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis, SAGE Publications, London, 2006). The theory espouses the importance of enriching information objects with descriptions pertaining to the about-ness of information objects. Such richness and diversity of descriptions, it is argued, could chiefly be achieved by involving users in the metadata creation process. The theory includes four overarching metadata principles - metadata enriching, linking, openness and filtering. The theory proposes a mixed metadata approach where metadata experts provide the requisite basic descriptive metadata, structure and interoperability (a priori metadata) while users continually enrich it with their own interpretations (post-hoc metadata). Enriched metadata is inter- and cross-linked (the principle of linking), made openly accessible (the principle of openness) and presented (the principle of filtering) according to user needs. It is argued that enriched, interlinked and open metadata effectively rises and scales to the challenges presented by the growing digital collections and changing user expectations. This metadata approach allows users to pro-actively engage in co-creating metadata, hence enhancing the findability, discoverability and subsequent usage of information resources. This paper concludes by indicating the current challenges and opportunities to implement the theory of metadata enriching and filtering.
  4. Kopácsi, S. et al.: Development of a classification server to support metadata harmonization in a long term preservation system (2016) 0.02 
    0.017120589 = product of:
  0.034241177 = sum of:
    0.034241177 = product of:
      0.068482354 = sum of:
        0.068482354 = weight(_text_:22 in 3280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068482354 = score(doc=3280,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3280, 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=3280)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
  5. Hajra, A. et al.: Enriching scientific publications from LOD repositories through word embeddings approach (2016) 0.02 
    0.017120589 = product of:
  0.034241177 = sum of:
    0.034241177 = product of:
      0.068482354 = sum of:
        0.068482354 = weight(_text_:22 in 3281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068482354 = score(doc=3281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3281, 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=3281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
  6. Mora-Mcginity, M. et al.: MusicWeb: music discovery with open linked semantic metadata (2016) 0.02 
    0.017120589 = product of:
  0.034241177 = sum of:
    0.034241177 = product of:
      0.068482354 = sum of:
        0.068482354 = weight(_text_:22 in 3282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068482354 = score(doc=3282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3282, 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=3282)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
  7. White, H.: Examining scientific vocabulary : mapping controlled vocabularies with free text keywords (2013) 0.01 
    0.01369647 = product of:
  0.02739294 = sum of:
    0.02739294 = product of:
      0.05478588 = sum of:
        0.05478588 = weight(_text_:22 in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05478588 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1953, 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=1953)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    29. 5.2015 19:09:22
  8. Alves dos Santos, E.; Mucheroni, M.L.: VIAF and OpenCitations : cooperative work as a strategy for information organization in the linked data era (2018) 0.01 
    0.01369647 = product of:
  0.02739294 = sum of:
    0.02739294 = product of:
      0.05478588 = sum of:
        0.05478588 = weight(_text_:22 in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05478588 = score(doc=4826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4826, 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=4826)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    18. 1.2019 19:13:22
  9. Ilik, V.; Storlien, J.; Olivarez, J.: Metadata makeover (2014) 0.01 
    0.011984412 = product of:
  0.023968823 = sum of:
    0.023968823 = product of:
      0.047937647 = sum of:
        0.047937647 = weight(_text_:22 in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047937647 = score(doc=2606,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2606, 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=2606)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  10. Metadata and semantics research : 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings (2016) 0.01 
    0.011984412 = product of:
  0.023968823 = sum of:
    0.023968823 = product of:
      0.047937647 = sum of:
        0.047937647 = weight(_text_:22 in 3283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047937647 = score(doc=3283,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3283, 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=3283)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  11. Pfister, E.; Wittwer, B.; Wolff, M.: Metadaten - Manuelle Datenpflege vs. Automatisieren : ein Praxisbericht zu Metadatenmanagement an der ETH-Bibliothek (2017) 0.01 
    0.011984412 = product of:
  0.023968823 = sum of:
    0.023968823 = product of:
      0.047937647 = sum of:
        0.047937647 = weight(_text_:22 in 5630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047937647 = score(doc=5630,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5630, 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=5630)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    B.I.T.online. 20(2017) H.1, S.22-25
  12. Baker, T.: Dublin Core Application Profiles : current approaches (2010) 0.01 
    0.010272353 = product of:
  0.020544706 = sum of:
    0.020544706 = product of:
      0.04108941 = sum of:
        0.04108941 = weight(_text_:22 in 3737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04108941 = score(doc=3737,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  13. DeZelar-Tiedman, C.: Exploring user-contributed metadata's potential to enhance access to literary works (2011) 0.01 
    0.010272353 = product of:
  0.020544706 = sum of:
    0.020544706 = product of:
      0.04108941 = sum of:
        0.04108941 = weight(_text_:22 in 2595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04108941 = score(doc=2595,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2595, 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=2595)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  14. Wartburg, K. von; Sibille, C.; Aliverti, C.: Metadata collaboration between the Swiss National Library and research institutions in the field of Swiss historiography (2019) 0.01 
    0.010272353 = product of:
  0.020544706 = sum of:
    0.020544706 = product of:
      0.04108941 = sum of:
        0.04108941 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04108941 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    30. 5.2019 19:22:49
  15. Cho, H.; Donovan, A.; Lee, J.H.: Art in an algorithm : a taxonomy for describing video game visual styles (2018) 0.01 
    0.008560294 = product of:
  0.017120589 = sum of:
    0.017120589 = product of:
      0.034241177 = sum of:
        0.034241177 = weight(_text_:22 in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034241177 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4218, 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=4218)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The discovery and retrieval of video games in library and information systems is, by and large, dependent on a limited set of descriptive metadata. Noticeably missing from this metadata are classifications of visual style-despite the overwhelmingly visual nature of most video games and the interest in visual style among video game users. One explanation for this paucity is the difficulty in eliciting consistent judgements about visual style, likely due to subjective interpretations of terminology and a lack of demonstrable testing for coinciding judgements. This study presents a taxonomy of video game visual styles constructed from the findings of a 22-participant cataloging user study of visual styles. A detailed description of the study, and its value and shortcomings, are presented along with reflections about the challenges of cultivating consensus about visual style in video games. The high degree of overall agreement in the user study demonstrates the potential value of a descriptor like visual style and the use of a cataloging study in developing visual style taxonomies. The resulting visual style taxonomy, the methods and analysis described herein may help improve the organization and retrieval of video games and possibly other visual materials like graphic designs, illustrations, and animations.
  16. Roy, W.; Gray, C.: Preparing existing metadata for repository batch import : a recipe for a fickle food (2018) 0.01 
    0.008560294 = product of:
  0.017120589 = sum of:
    0.017120589 = product of:
      0.034241177 = sum of:
        0.034241177 = weight(_text_:22 in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034241177 = score(doc=4550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4550, 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=4550)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    10.11.2018 16:27:22
  17. Willis, C.; Greenberg, J.; White, H.: Analysis and synthesis of metadata goals for scientific data (2012) 0.01 
    0.006848235 = product of:
  0.01369647 = sum of:
    0.01369647 = product of:
      0.02739294 = sum of:
        0.02739294 = weight(_text_:22 in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02739294 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 367, 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=367)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The proliferation of discipline-specific metadata schemes contributes to artificial barriers that can impede interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. The authors considered this problem by examining the domains, objectives, and architectures of nine metadata schemes used to document scientific data in the physical, life, and social sciences. They used a mixed-methods content analysis and Greenberg's () metadata objectives, principles, domains, and architectural layout (MODAL) framework, and derived 22 metadata-related goals from textual content describing each metadata scheme. Relationships are identified between the domains (e.g., scientific discipline and type of data) and the categories of scheme objectives. For each strong correlation (>0.6), a Fisher's exact test for nonparametric data was used to determine significance (p < .05). Significant relationships were found between the domains and objectives of the schemes. Schemes describing observational data are more likely to have "scheme harmonization" (compatibility and interoperability with related schemes) as an objective; schemes with the objective "abstraction" (a conceptual model exists separate from the technical implementation) also have the objective "sufficiency" (the scheme defines a minimal amount of information to meet the needs of the community); and schemes with the objective "data publication" do not have the objective "element refinement." The analysis indicates that many metadata-driven goals expressed by communities are independent of scientific discipline or the type of data, although they are constrained by historical community practices and workflows as well as the technological environment at the time of scheme creation. The analysis reveals 11 fundamental metadata goals for metadata documenting scientific data in support of sharing research data across disciplines and domains. The authors report these results and highlight the need for more metadata-related research, particularly in the context of recent funding agency policy changes.

Authors

Languages

  • e 16
  • d 1

Types

Themes