Search (4803 results, page 1 of 241)

0.23098665 = sum of:
  0.037662808 = product of:
    0.11298842 = sum of:
      0.11298842 = weight(_text_:objects in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11298842 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.32067758 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 2623, 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=2623)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.19332385 = sum of:
    0.1442776 = weight(_text_:core in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1442776 = score(doc=2623,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.30471483 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060333636 = queryNorm
        0.47348404 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
    0.04904625 = weight(_text_:22 in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04904625 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21127811 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060333636 = 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)

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.

Object

Dublin Core

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

0.22018352 = sum of:
  0.04393994 = product of:
    0.13181981 = sum of:
      0.13181981 = weight(_text_:objects in 4227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13181981 = score(doc=4227,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.32067758 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 4227, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4227)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.17624359 = sum of:
    0.119022965 = weight(_text_:core in 4227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.119022965 = score(doc=4227,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30471483 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060333636 = queryNorm
        0.39060444 = fieldWeight in 4227, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4227)
    0.057220623 = weight(_text_:22 in 4227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057220623 = score(doc=4227,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21127811 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060333636 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4227, 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=4227)

Abstract

We present three fundamental, interrelated approaches to support multiple access paths to each terminal object in information hierarchies: faceted classification, faceted search, and web directories with embedded symbolic links. This survey aims to demonstrate how each approach supports users who seek information from multiple perspectives. We achieve this by exploring each approach, the relationships between these approaches, including tradeoffs, and how they can be used in concert, while focusing on a core set of hypermedia elements common to all. This approach provides a foundation from which to study, understand, and synthesize applications which employ these techniques. This survey does not aim to be comprehensive, but rather focuses on thematic issues.

Source

Information processing and management. 46(2010) no.1, S.22-43

0.20988801 = sum of:
  0.025108539 = product of:
    0.075325616 = sum of:
      0.075325616 = weight(_text_:objects in 2664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.075325616 = score(doc=2664,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.32067758 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.23489517 = fieldWeight in 2664, 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=2664)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.18477947 = sum of:
    0.15208197 = weight(_text_:core in 2664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15208197 = score(doc=2664,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.30471483 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060333636 = queryNorm
        0.49909604 = fieldWeight in 2664, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2664)
    0.0326975 = weight(_text_:22 in 2664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0326975 = score(doc=2664,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21127811 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060333636 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2664, 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=2664)

Abstract

DISC-UK DataShare (2007-2009), a project led by the University of Edinburgh and funded by JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee, UK), arises from an existing consortium of academic data support professionals working in the domain of social science datasets (Data Information Specialists Committee-UK). We are working together across four universities with colleagues engaged in managing open access repositories for e-prints. Our project supports 'early adopter' academics who wish to openly share datasets and presents a model for depositing 'orphaned datasets' that are not being deposited in subject-domain data archives/centres. Outputs from the project are intended to help to demystify data as complex objects in repositories, and assist other institutional repository managers in overcoming barriers to incorporating research data. By building on lessons learned from recent JISC-funded data repository projects such as SToRe and GRADE the project will help realize the vision of the Digital Repositories Roadmap, e.g. the milestone under Data, "Institutions need to invest in research data repositories" (Heery and Powell, 2006). Application of appropriate metadata is an important area of development for the project. Datasets are not different from other digital materials in that they need to be described, not just for discovery but also for preservation and re-use. The GRADE project found that for geo-spatial datasets, Dublin Core metadata (with geo-spatial enhancements such as a bounding box for the 'coverage' property) was sufficient for discovery within a DSpace repository, though more indepth metadata or documentation was required for re-use after downloading. The project partners are examining other metadata schemas such as the Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) versions 2 and 3, used primarily by social science data archives (Martinez, 2008). Crosswalks from the DDI to qualified Dublin Core are important for describing research datasets at the study level (as opposed to the variable level which is largely out of scope for this project). DataShare is benefiting from work of of the DRIADE project (application profile development for evolutionary biology) (Carrier, et al, 2007), eBank UK (developed an application profile for crystallography data) and GAP (Geospatial Application Profile, in progress) in defining interoperable Dublin Core qualified metadata elements and their application to datasets for each partner repository. The solution devised at Edinburgh for DSpace will be covered in the poster.

Object

Dublin Core

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

0.18226749 = product of:
  0.36453497 = sum of:
    0.36453497 = sum of:
      0.27205247 = weight(_text_:core in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.27205247 = score(doc=2408,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.30471483 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.8928101 = fieldWeight in 2408, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2408)
      0.09248249 = weight(_text_:22 in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09248249 = score(doc=2408,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.21127811 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2408, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2408)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper discuesses the goals and outcome of the OCLC/NCSA Metadata Workshop held March 1-3, 1995 in Dublin Ohio. The resulting proposed "Dublin Core" Metadata Elements Set is described briefly. An attempt is made to map the Dublin Core data elements to USMARC; problems and outstanding questions are noted.

Date

13. 1.2007 18:31:22

Object

Dublin core

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.43-58

0.17755263 = product of:
  0.35510525 = sum of:
    0.35510525 = sum of:
      0.306059 = weight(_text_:core in 1087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.306059 = score(doc=1087,freq=18.0), product of:
          0.30471483 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          1.0044112 = fieldWeight in 1087, product of:
            4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
              18.0 = termFreq=18.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1087)
      0.04904625 = weight(_text_:22 in 1087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04904625 = score(doc=1087,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21127811 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1087, 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=1087)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Core Standard for Rare Books, known as the DCRB Core standard, was approved by the Program for Cooperative Cataloging for use beginning in January 1999. Comparable to the core standards for other types of materials, the DCRB Core standard provides requirements for an intermediate level of bibliographic description for the cataloging of rare books. While the Core Standard for Books seems to have found a place in general cataloging practice, the DCRB Core standard appears to have met with resistance among rare book cataloging practitioners. This study investigates the extent to which such resistance exists by examining all of the DCRB Core records in the OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) Online Union Catalog (WorldCat) and the Research Libraries Croup Union Catalog (RLIN) databases that were created during the standard's first five years. The study analyzes the content of the records for adherence to the standard and investigates the ways in which the flexibility of the standard and cataloger's judgment augmented many records with more than the mandatory elements of description and access.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Object

DCRB Core standard

0.1702743 = sum of:
  0.044386044 = product of:
    0.13315813 = sum of:
      0.13315813 = weight(_text_:objects in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13315813 = score(doc=187,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.32067758 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.41523993 = fieldWeight in 187, 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=187)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.12588826 = sum of:
    0.08501639 = weight(_text_:core in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08501639 = score(doc=187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30471483 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060333636 = queryNorm
        0.27900314 = fieldWeight in 187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=187)
    0.040871873 = weight(_text_:22 in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040871873 = score(doc=187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21127811 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060333636 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 187, 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=187)

Abstract

The formal charge for the IFLA study involving international bibliography standards was to delineate the functions that are performed by the bibliographic record with respect to various media, applications, and user needs. The method used was the entity relationship analysis technique. Three groups of entities that are the key objects of interest to users of bibliographic records were defined. The primary group contains four entities: work, expression, manifestation, and item. The second group includes entities responsible for the intellectual or artistic content, production, or ownership of entities in the first group. The third group includes entities that represent concepts, objects, events, and places. In the study we identified the attributes associated with each entity and the relationships that are most important to users. The attributes and relationships were mapped to the functional requirements for bibliographic records that were defined in terms of four user tasks: to find, identify, select, and obtain. Basic requirements for national bibliographic records were recommended based on the entity analysis. The recommendations of the study are compared with two standards, AACR (Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules) and the Dublin Core, to place them into pragmatic context. The results of the study are being used in the review of the complete set of ISBDs as the initial benchmark in determining data elements for each format.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.16872373 = product of:
  0.33744746 = sum of:
    0.33744746 = sum of:
      0.27205247 = weight(_text_:core in 903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.27205247 = score(doc=903,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.30471483 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.8928101 = fieldWeight in 903, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=903)
      0.065395 = weight(_text_:22 in 903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.065395 = score(doc=903,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21127811 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 903, 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=903)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Recently the view has developed that electronic resources require the same level of cataloguing as the physical resources found in libraries, with the effect that a number of guidelines for cataloguing Internet resources have appeared. Describes one such standard for resource description, the Dublin Core metadata set, the ongoing refinement of the metadata elements and the application of the Dublin Core metadata set

Object

Dublin Core

Source

Cataloguing Australia. 23(1997) nos.1/2, S.17-22

0.16296291 = sum of:
  0.04393994 = product of:
    0.13181981 = sum of:
      0.13181981 = weight(_text_:objects in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13181981 = score(doc=1764,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.32067758 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 1764, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1764)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.119022965 = product of:
    0.23804593 = sum of:
      0.23804593 = weight(_text_:core in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.23804593 = score(doc=1764,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.30471483 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.7812089 = fieldWeight in 1764, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1764)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Raises critical questions about the way archivists should be managing the metadata associated with records management and recordkeeping processes in order to maintain records in their context through time in complex and rapidly changing environments. Explores some current models for specifying record metadata, drawing on the outcomes of research projects and standards activities. Speculates on the potential value of defining a core set of record metadata. The mapping of the overlap between the metadata specified in the Pittsburgh University and British Columbia University projects, and the Australian Records Management Standards, reveals a possible core set of record metadada, analysis of which has shown that it would essentially enable the descriptions of the records as passive objects

0.16168204 = product of:
  0.32336408 = sum of:
    0.32336408 = sum of:
      0.26614344 = weight(_text_:core in 2220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.26614344 = score(doc=2220,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.30471483 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.8734181 = fieldWeight in 2220, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2220)
      0.057220623 = weight(_text_:22 in 2220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057220623 = score(doc=2220,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21127811 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2220, 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=2220)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Creation of more and better metadata, or resource descriptions, is the best means to solve the problems of massive recall and lack of precision associated with Internet information retrieval. Dublin Core Metadata workshops aim to develop the resource descriptions. Describes the 4th workshop held in Canberra March 1997 and the 5th held in Oct. 1997 in Helsinki. DC-4 dealt with element structure with qualifiers language, scheme and type; extensibility issues; and element refinement. DC-5 dealt with element refinement and stability; definition of sub-elements and resource types; and sharing of Dublin Core implementation experiences, one of which is the Nordic Metadata project. The Nordic countries are now well prepared to implement useful new tools built by the Internet metadata community

Object

Dublin Core

Source

Nordinfo Nytt. 1997, nos.3/4, S.10-22

0.1539911 = sum of:
  0.025108539 = product of:
    0.075325616 = sum of:
      0.075325616 = weight(_text_:objects in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.075325616 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.32067758 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.23489517 = fieldWeight in 2656, 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=2656)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.12888257 = sum of:
    0.09618507 = weight(_text_:core in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09618507 = score(doc=2656,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.30471483 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060333636 = queryNorm
        0.31565604 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
    0.0326975 = weight(_text_:22 in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0326975 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21127811 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060333636 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2656, 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=2656)

Abstract

This poster explores the customization of DSpace to allow the use of the AGRIS Application Profile metadata standard and the AGROVOC thesaurus. The objective is the adaptation of DSpace, through the least invasive code changes either in the form of plug-ins or add-ons, to the specific needs of the Agricultural Sciences and Technology community. Metadata standards such as AGRIS AP, and Knowledge Organization Systems such as the AGROVOC thesaurus, provide mechanisms for sharing information in a standardized manner by recommending the use of common semantics and interoperable syntax (Subirats et al., 2007). AGRIS AP was created to enhance the description, exchange and subsequent retrieval of agricultural Document-like Information Objects (DLIOs). It is a metadata schema which draws from Metadata standards such as Dublin Core (DC), the Australian Government Locator Service Metadata (AGLS) and the Agricultural Metadata Element Set (AgMES) namespaces. It allows sharing of information across dispersed bibliographic systems (FAO, 2005). AGROVOC68 is a multilingual structured thesaurus covering agricultural and related domains. Its main role is to standardize the indexing process in order to make searching simpler and more efficient. AGROVOC is developed by FAO (Lauser et al., 2006). The customization of the DSpace is taking place in several phases. First, the AGRIS AP metadata schema was mapped onto the metadata DSpace model, with several enhancements implemented to support AGRIS AP elements. Next, AGROVOC will be integrated as a controlled vocabulary accessed through a local SKOS or OWL file. Eventually the system will be configurable to access AGROVOC through local files or remotely via webservices. Finally, spell checking and tooltips will be incorporated in the user interface to support metadata editing. Adapting DSpace to support AGRIS AP and annotation using the semantically-rich AGROVOC thesaurus transform DSpace into a powerful, domain-specific system for annotation and exchange of bibliographic metadata in the agricultural domain.

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

0.14947121 = product of:
  0.29894242 = sum of:
    0.29894242 = sum of:
      0.24989617 = weight(_text_:core in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.24989617 = score(doc=1415,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.30471483 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.82009846 = fieldWeight in 1415, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1415)
      0.04904625 = weight(_text_:22 in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04904625 = score(doc=1415,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21127811 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1415, 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=1415)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Domain analysis reveals the contours of knowledge in diverse discourse communities. The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) conferences represent the cutting edge of research in metadata for the digital age. Beak and Smiraglia (2013) discovered a shared epistemology revealed by co-citation perceptions of the domain, a common ontological base, social semantics, and a limited but focused intent. User groups did not emerge from that analysis, raising an interesting question about the content of core thematic extension versus a highly granular intension. We analyzed keywords from the titles by year to identify core and granular topics as they arose over time. The results showed that only 36 core keywords, e.g. "Dublin Core," "Metadata," "Linked Data," "Applications," etc. represents the domain's extension. However, there was much rich terminology among the granularity, e.g., "development," "description," "interoperability," "analysis," "applications," and "classification" and even "domain" pointed to the domain's intension.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.14796054 = product of:
  0.2959211 = sum of:
    0.2959211 = sum of:
      0.2550492 = weight(_text_:core in 153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2550492 = score(doc=153,freq=18.0), product of:
          0.30471483 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.83700943 = fieldWeight in 153, product of:
            4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
              18.0 = termFreq=18.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=153)
      0.040871873 = weight(_text_:22 in 153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040871873 = score(doc=153,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21127811 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 153, 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=153)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In January 1999, the Program for Cooperative Cataloging approved the core bibliographic standard for rare books, called the DCRB Core standard. Like the other core standards, the DCRB Core provides the framework within which catalogers can create bibliographic records that are less than full, but are as reliable as full-level records in description and authorized headings. In the three years since its approval, there is little evidence that the standard has been widely used. This study reports the results of a survey sent to forty-three participants who indicated in a preliminary query that they do use the DCRB Core or that they have made the decision not to use it. In the thirty-seven surveys that were returned, only about 16% of the respondents said they have used the standard to create bibliographic records for their rare books. The libraries that do not use the core standard find it inferior or lacking in a number of ways. Several of those libraries, however, are planning to use the standard in the future or are seriously planning to investigate using it. Such intent may indicate that the time is approaching when more libraries will find reasons to implement the standard. One impetus may come from the findings of a recent survey of the special collections departments of member libraries of the Association of Research Libraries that emphasize the size of the backlogs in those departments. If faster accessibility to specific portions of the backlogs would benefit users more than having fulllevel cataloging, application of the DCRB Core standard could facilitate reducing those backlogs.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Object

DCRB Core standard

0.14763328 = product of:
  0.29526657 = sum of:
    0.29526657 = sum of:
      0.23804593 = weight(_text_:core in 6128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.23804593 = score(doc=6128,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.30471483 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.7812089 = fieldWeight in 6128, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6128)
      0.057220623 = weight(_text_:22 in 6128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057220623 = score(doc=6128,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21127811 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6128, 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=6128)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Discusses the goals and outcome of the OCLC/NCSA Metadata Workshop, held in Dublin, Ohio, 1-3 Mar 95, which resulted in the proposed 'Dublin Core' Metadata Elements. Describes an attempt to map the Dublin Core data elements to the USMARC format (with particular reference to USMARC field 856 for electronic locations), noting problems and outstanding questions. The USMARC format elements considered include: subject, title, author, other-agent, publisher, publication date, identifier, object-type, form, relation, language, source, coverage, and other issues

Object

Dublin Core

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.22, nos.3/4

0.14640215 = sum of:
  0.050217077 = product of:
    0.15065123 = sum of:
      0.15065123 = weight(_text_:objects in 7684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15065123 = score(doc=7684,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.32067758 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.46979034 = fieldWeight in 7684, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7684)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.09618507 = product of:
    0.19237015 = sum of:
      0.19237015 = weight(_text_:core in 7684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19237015 = score(doc=7684,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.30471483 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.6313121 = fieldWeight in 7684, 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=7684)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes the evolving ways of making documents and document like objects bibliographically accessible by the library cataloguing community and reports initiatives. Includes: definition of a basic set of data elements known as the Dublin Core; examination of library cataloguing objectives and record structures; proposals for persistent addresses for resources; and support for the idea of data registry to facilitate interoperability among metadata schemes

Object

Dublin Core

0.1463024 = sum of:
  0.062140465 = product of:
    0.1864214 = sum of:
      0.1864214 = weight(_text_:objects in 2983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1864214 = score(doc=2983,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.32067758 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.5813359 = fieldWeight in 2983, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2983)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.084161945 = product of:
    0.16832389 = sum of:
      0.16832389 = weight(_text_:core in 2983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16832389 = score(doc=2983,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.30471483 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.5523981 = fieldWeight in 2983, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2983)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Alliance Digital Repository (ADR) is a consortial digital repository service developed by Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries (Alliance). This paper details how a standard descriptive metadata policy for repository records developed, and how that policy is currently being implemented. All digital objects in the ADR are required to have MODS and OAI-Dublin Core metadata that conform to certain minimum requirements. To help members meet the requirements, Alliance staff and the ADR Metadata Working Group, using tools available in the Fedora/Fez repository environment, have developed a customized set of core ADR material type templates in XSD form.

0.1432645 = sum of:
  0.09225466 = product of:
    0.27676398 = sum of:
      0.27676398 = weight(_text_:objects in 2981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.27676398 = score(doc=2981,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.32067758 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.86305994 = fieldWeight in 2981, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2981)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.05100984 = product of:
    0.10201968 = sum of:
      0.10201968 = weight(_text_:core in 2981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10201968 = score(doc=2981,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.30471483 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.3348038 = fieldWeight in 2981, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2981)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Metadata is a core issue for the creation of repositories. Different institutional repositories have chosen and use different metadata models, elements and values for describing the range of digital objects they store. Thus, this paper analyzes the current use of metadata describing those Learning Objects that some open higher educational institutions' repositories include in their collections. The goal of this work is to identify and analyze the different metadata models being used to describe educational features of those specific digital educational objects (such as audience, type of educational material, learning objectives, etc.). Also discussed is the concept and typology of Learning Objects (LO) through their use in University Repositories. We will also examine the usefulness of specifically describing those learning objects, setting them apart from other kind of documents included in the repository, mainly scholarly publications and research results of the Higher Education institution.

0.1416149 = sum of:
  0.053263254 = product of:
    0.15978976 = sum of:
      0.15978976 = weight(_text_:objects in 4055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15978976 = score(doc=4055,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.32067758 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.49828792 = fieldWeight in 4055, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4055)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.088351645 = product of:
    0.17670329 = sum of:
      0.17670329 = weight(_text_:core in 4055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17670329 = score(doc=4055,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.30471483 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.5798972 = fieldWeight in 4055, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4055)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This project's goal is to develop a catalog for a digitized collection of historical fashion objects held at the Kent State University Museum and to analyze and evaluate how well existing metadata formats can be applied to a fashion collection. The project considered the known and anticipated uses of the collection and the identification of the metadata elements that would be needed to support these uses. From a set of 90 museum accession records, 42 fashion objects were selected for cataloging. 2 metadata treatments were created for these 42 items using (a) AACR in use with USMARC formats, (b) the Dublic Core set of elements designed for minimal level cataloging, and (c) the Visual Resources Association (VRA) Core Categories for Visual Resources created for developing local databases and cataloging records for visual resource collections. Comparison and analysis of the formats resulted in the adoption of a modified VRA metadata format to catalog the entire digitized historical fashion collection

Object

Dublin Core

0.1385846 = product of:
  0.2771692 = sum of:
    0.2771692 = sum of:
      0.22812295 = weight(_text_:core in 3737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.22812295 = score(doc=3737,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.30471483 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.74864405 = fieldWeight in 3737, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3737)
      0.04904625 = weight(_text_:22 in 3737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04904625 = score(doc=3737,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21127811 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = 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)

Abstract

The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative currently defines a Dublin Core Application Profile as a set of specifications about the metadata design of a particular application or for a particular domain or community of users. The current approach to application profiles is summarized in the Singapore Framework for Application Profiles [SINGAPORE-FRAMEWORK] (see Figure 1). While the approach originally developed as a means of specifying customized applications based on the fifteen elements of the Dublin Core Element Set (e.g., Title, Date, Subject), it has evolved into a generic approach to creating metadata that meets specific local requirements while integrating coherently with other RDF-based metadata.

Object

Dublin Core Application Profiles

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

0.13168722 = product of:
  0.26337445 = sum of:
    0.26337445 = sum of:
      0.20615382 = weight(_text_:core in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20615382 = score(doc=637,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.30471483 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.67654675 = fieldWeight in 637, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=637)
      0.057220623 = weight(_text_:22 in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057220623 = score(doc=637,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21127811 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 637, 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=637)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In an interview, Diane I. Hillmann, an expert in metadata for digital libraries and currently co-principal investigator for the National Science Digital Library Registry based at Cornell University, discusses her education and career, and provides overviews and insights on metadata initiatives, including standards and models such as the widely adopted Dublin Core schema. She shares her professional interests from the early part of her career with communications, cataloging, and database production services; highlights key issues; and provides ideas and resources for managing changes in metadata standards and digital projects.

Date

2.12.2007 19:35:22

Object

Dublic Core

0.13128029 = sum of:
  0.08877209 = product of:
    0.26631626 = sum of:
      0.26631626 = weight(_text_:objects in 2496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.26631626 = score(doc=2496,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.32067758 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.83047986 = fieldWeight in 2496, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2496)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.042508196 = product of:
    0.08501639 = sum of:
      0.08501639 = weight(_text_:core in 2496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08501639 = score(doc=2496,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.30471483 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.060333636 = queryNorm
          0.27900314 = fieldWeight in 2496, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2496)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

The delivery of learning objects, small chunks of stand alone core components of reusable instruction (Nugent 2005) are used extensively in k-12 environments. Learning objects are videos and animated clips which are deployed in classrooms through public television companion websites. One such site is PBS. org/teachersource. Scholars and institutional reports (Schaffer & Douglas 2004, Nugent 2005, and PBS 2003) have identified challenges with learning objects lacking reliable pedagogical and curricular context due to the need for interpretation of raw materials by teachers and students (Nugent 2005). Technical challenges in learning objects include pedagogy and context relationships, issues with metadata in digital portals, and digital rights to content. This is a study of metadata representations of learning objects. The goal of this study was to propose and apply a comparative taxonomy to classify learning objects based on Bloom's Taxonomy in 2006 and Peschl's modes of knowing in 2007, thus adding to the discourse on taxonomies present in learning object repositories and knowledge-oriented educational processes existing in public broadcasting and educational new media content domains. In an effort to re-examine the data and conclusions, I matched Bloom's model against modes of knowing keywords put forth by Peschl (2006). Matching the Peschl model against the Bloom model provided a new template to use in determining the cognitive level of learning objectives embedded in PBS TeacherSource website learning objects.