Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

0.019541508 = product of:
  0.09770754 = sum of:
    0.09770754 = weight(_text_:22 in 8365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09770754 = score(doc=8365,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 8365, 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=8365)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 6.2015 16:08:38

0.016749864 = product of:
  0.08374932 = sum of:
    0.08374932 = weight(_text_:22 in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08374932 = score(doc=126,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 126, 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=126)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.015368836 = product of:
  0.07684418 = sum of:
    0.07684418 = weight(_text_:index in 2030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07684418 = score(doc=2030,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 2030, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2030)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-bib-info/frontdoor/index/index/docId/1676

0.01395822 = product of:
  0.0697911 = sum of:
    0.0697911 = weight(_text_:22 in 1287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0697911 = score(doc=1287,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1287, 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=1287)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.012295068 = product of:
  0.06147534 = sum of:
    0.06147534 = weight(_text_:index in 4336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06147534 = score(doc=4336,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.27311024 = fieldWeight in 4336, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4336)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The publication of library legacy includes publication of structuring vocabularies such as thesauri, classifications, subject headings. Different sources use different vocabularies, different in structure, width, depth and scope, and languages. Federated access to distributed data collections is currently possible if they rely on the same vocabularies. Mapping techniques and standards supporting them (such as SKOS mapping properties, OWL sameAs and equivalentClass) are still largely experimental, even in the linked data land. Libraries use a variety of controlled subject vocabulary and classification schemes to index items in their collections. Although most collections will employ only a single scheme, different schemes may be chosen to index different collections within a library or in separate libraries; schemes are chosen on the basis of language, subject focus (general or specific), granularity (specificity), user expectation, and availability and support (cost, currency, completeness, tools). For example, a typical academic library will operate separate metadata systems for the library's main collections, special collections (e.g. manuscripts, archives, audiovisual), digital collections, and one or more institutional repositories for teaching and research output; each of these systems may employ a different subject vocabulary, with little or no interoperability between terms and concepts. Users expect to have a single point-of-search in resource discovery services focussed on their local institutional collections. Librarians have to use complex and expensive resource discovery platforms to meet user expectations. Library communities continue to develop resource discovery services for consortia with a geographical, subject, sector (public, academic, school, special libraries), and/or domain (libraries, archives, museums) focus. Services are based on distributed searching (e.g. via Z39.50) or metadata aggregations (e.g. OCLC's WorldCat and OAISter). As a result, the number of different subject schemes encountered in such services is increasing. Trans-national consortia (e.g. Europeana) add to the complexity of the environment by including subject vocabularies in multiple languages. Users expect single point-of-search in consortial resource discovery service involving multiple organisations and large-scale metadata aggregations. Users also expect to be able to search for subjects using their own language and terms in an unambiguous, contextualised manner.

0.011843943 = product of:
  0.059219714 = sum of:
    0.059219714 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059219714 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The paper discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and /or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the DDC (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.

0.011166576 = product of:
  0.05583288 = sum of:
    0.05583288 = weight(_text_:22 in 7411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05583288 = score(doc=7411,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7411, 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=7411)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

7.11.2008 10:40:22

0.011166576 = product of:
  0.05583288 = sum of:
    0.05583288 = weight(_text_:22 in 541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05583288 = score(doc=541,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 541, 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=541)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:46

0.011166576 = product of:
  0.05583288 = sum of:
    0.05583288 = weight(_text_:22 in 2227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05583288 = score(doc=2227,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2227, 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=2227)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

7.11.2008 10:40:22

0.009770754 = product of:
  0.04885377 = sum of:
    0.04885377 = weight(_text_:22 in 540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04885377 = score(doc=540,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 540, 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=540)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:27

0.009770754 = product of:
  0.04885377 = sum of:
    0.04885377 = weight(_text_:22 in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04885377 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 759, 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=759)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

11. 5.2013 19:22:18

0.008693925 = product of:
  0.043469626 = sum of:
    0.043469626 = weight(_text_:index in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043469626 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.1931181 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Recently, a growing amount of systems that allow personal content annotation (tagging) are being created, ranging from personal sites for organising bookmarks (del.icio.us), photos (flickr.com) or videos (video.google.com, youtube.com) to systems for managing bibliographies for scientific research projects (citeulike.org, connotea.org). Simultaneously, a debate on the pro and cons of allowing users to add personal keywords to digital content has arisen. One recurrent point-of-discussion is whether tagging can solve the well-known vocabulary problem: In order to support successful retrieval in complex environments, it is necessary to index an object with a variety of aliases (cf. Furnas 1987). In this spirit, social tagging enhances the pool of rigid, traditional keywording by adding user-created retrieval vocabularies. Furthermore, tagging goes beyond simple personal content-based keywords by providing meta-keywords like funny or interesting that "identify qualities or characteristics" (Golder and Huberman 2006, Kipp and Campbell 2006, Kipp 2007, Feinberg 2006, Kroski 2005). Contrarily, tagging systems are claimed to lead to semantic difficulties that may hinder the precision and recall of tagging systems (e.g. the polysemy problem, cf. Marlow 2006, Lakoff 2005, Golder and Huberman 2006). Empirical research on social tagging is still rare and mostly from a computer linguistics or librarian point-of-view (Voß 2007) which focus either on the automatic statistical analyses of large data sets, or intellectually inspect single cases of tag usage: Some scientists studied the evolution of tag vocabularies and tag distribution in specific systems (Golder and Huberman 2006, Hammond 2005). Others concentrate on tagging behaviour and tagger characteristics in collaborative systems. (Hammond 2005, Kipp and Campbell 2007, Feinberg 2006, Sen 2006). However, little research has been conducted on the functional and linguistic characteristics of tags.1 An analysis of these patterns could show differences between user wording and conventional keywording. In order to provide a reasonable basis for comparison, a classification system for existing tags is needed.

0.008693925 = product of:
  0.043469626 = sum of:
    0.043469626 = weight(_text_:index in 2324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043469626 = score(doc=2324,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.1931181 = fieldWeight in 2324, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2324)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

During the years 2006 and 2007, the BnF has collaborated with the National Library of the Netherlands within the framework of the Dutch project STITCH. This project, through concrete experiments, investigates semantic interoperability, especially in relation to searching. How can we conduct semantic searches across several digital heritage collections? The metadata related to content analysis are often heterogeneous. Beyond using manual mapping of semantically similar entities, STITCH explores the techniques of the semantic web, particularly ontology mapping. This paper is about an experiment made on two digital iconographic collections: Mandragore, iconographic database of the Manuscript Department of the BnF, and the Medieval Illuminated manuscripts collection of the KB. While the content of these two collections is similar, they have been processed differently and the vocabularies used to index their content is very different. Vocabularies in Mandragore and Iconclass are both controlled and hierarchical but they do not have the same semantic and structure. This difference is of particular interest to the STITCH project, as it aims to study automatic alignment of two vocabularies. The collaborative experiment started with a precise analysis of each of the vocabularies; that included concepts and their representation, lexical properties of the terms used, semantic relationships, etc. The team of Dutch researchers then studied and implemented mechanisms of alignment of the two vocabularies. The initial models being different, there had to be a common standard in order to enable procedures of alignment. RDF and SKOS were selected for that. The experiment lead to building a prototype that allows for querying in both databases at the same time through a single interface. The descriptors of each vocabulary are used as search terms for all images regardless of the collection they belong to. This experiment is only one step in the search for solutions that aim at making navigation easier between heritage collections that have heterogeneous metadata.

0.008374932 = product of:
  0.04187466 = sum of:
    0.04187466 = weight(_text_:22 in 4183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04187466 = score(doc=4183,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4183, 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=4183)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 1.2011 10:16:32

0.008374932 = product of:
  0.04187466 = sum of:
    0.04187466 = weight(_text_:22 in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04187466 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4820, 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=4820)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

3.12.2016 18:39:22

0.00697911 = product of:
  0.03489555 = sum of:
    0.03489555 = weight(_text_:22 in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03489555 = score(doc=3628,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3628, 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=3628)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

This paper is a pre-print version presented at the ISKO UK 2009 conference, 22-23 June, prior to peer review and editing. For published proceedings see special issue of Aslib Proceedings journal.