Search (215 results, page 1 of 11)

  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Noever, D.; Ciolino, M.: ¬The Turing deception (2022) 0.24 
    0.23524328 = product of:
  0.47048655 = sum of:
    0.02940541 = product of:
      0.14702705 = sum of:
        0.14702705 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14702705 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26160556 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03085695 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.14702705 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14702705 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26160556 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03085695 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
    0.14702705 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14702705 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26160556 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03085695 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
    0.14702705 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14702705 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26160556 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03085695 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    Source
    https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN
  2. Gabler, S.: Vergabe von DDC-Sachgruppen mittels eines Schlagwort-Thesaurus (2021) 0.20 
    0.19603606 = product of:
  0.3920721 = sum of:
    0.024504509 = product of:
      0.12252254 = sum of:
        0.12252254 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12252254 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26160556 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03085695 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.12252254 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12252254 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26160556 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03085695 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
    0.12252254 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12252254 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26160556 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03085695 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
    0.12252254 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12252254 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26160556 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03085695 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    Content
    Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.
  3. Cheti, A.; Viti, E.: Functionality and merits of a faceted thesaurus : the case of the Nuovo soggettario (2023) 0.02 
    0.02029701 = product of:
  0.08118804 = sum of:
    0.07282665 = weight(_text_:museum in 1181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07282665 = score(doc=1181,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18411686 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9667873 = idf(docFreq=307, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03085695 = queryNorm
        0.39554584 = fieldWeight in 1181, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9667873 = idf(docFreq=307, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1181)
    0.008361382 = product of:
      0.025084145 = sum of:
        0.025084145 = weight(_text_:22 in 1181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025084145 = score(doc=1181,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108055785 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03085695 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1181, 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=1181)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    The Nuovo soggettario, the official Italian subject indexing system edited by the National Central Library of Florence, is made up of interactive components, the core of which is a general thesaurus and some rules of a conventional syntax for subject string construction. The Nuovo soggettario Thesaurus is in compliance with ISO 25964: 2011-2013, IFLA LRM, and FAIR principle (findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability). Its open data are available in the Zthes, MARC21, and in SKOS formats and allow for interoperability with l library, archive, and museum databases. The Thesaurus's macrostructure is organized into four fundamental macro-categories, thirteen categories, and facets. The facets allow for the orderly development of hierarchies, thereby limiting polyhierarchies and promoting the grouping of homogenous concepts. This paper addresses the main features and peculiarities which have characterized the consistent development of this categorical structure and its effects on the syntactic sphere in a predominantly pre-coordinated usage context.
    Date
    26.11.2023 18:59:22
  4. Bedford, D.: Knowledge architectures : structures and semantics (2021) 0.02 
    0.01987657 = product of:
  0.07950628 = sum of:
    0.07393202 = weight(_text_:informationsmanagement in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07393202 = score(doc=566,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19105253 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1915555 = idf(docFreq=245, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03085695 = queryNorm
        0.38697222 = fieldWeight in 566, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.1915555 = idf(docFreq=245, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=566)
    0.0055742543 = product of:
      0.016722763 = sum of:
        0.016722763 = weight(_text_:22 in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016722763 = score(doc=566,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108055785 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03085695 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 566, 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=566)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Content
    Section 1 Context and purpose of knowledge architecture -- 1 Making the case for knowledge architecture -- 2 The landscape of knowledge assets -- 3 Knowledge architecture and design -- 4 Knowledge architecture reference model -- 5 Knowledge architecture segments -- Section 2 Designing for availability -- 6 Knowledge object modeling -- 7 Knowledge structures for encoding, formatting, and packaging -- 8 Functional architecture for identification and distinction -- 9 Functional architectures for knowledge asset disposition and destruction -- 10 Functional architecture designs for knowledge preservation and conservation -- Section 3 Designing for accessibility -- 11 Functional architectures for knowledge seeking and discovery -- 12 Functional architecture for knowledge search -- 13 Functional architecture for knowledge categorization -- 14 Functional architectures for indexing and keywording -- 15 Functional architecture for knowledge semantics -- 16 Functional architecture for knowledge abstraction and surrogation -- Section 4 Functional architectures to support knowledge consumption -- 17 Functional architecture for knowledge augmentation, derivation, and synthesis -- 18 Functional architecture to manage risk and harm -- 19 Functional architectures for knowledge authentication and provenance -- 20 Functional architectures for securing knowledge assets -- 21 Functional architectures for authorization and asset management -- Section 5 Pulling it all together - the big picture knowledge architecture -- 22 Functional architecture for knowledge metadata and metainformation -- 23 The whole knowledge architecture - pulling it all together
    RSWK
    Informationsmanagement
    Subject
    Informationsmanagement
  5. Libraries, archives and museums as democratic spaces in a digital age (2020) 0.02 
    0.018206663 = product of:
  0.1456533 = sum of:
    0.1456533 = weight(_text_:museum in 417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1456533 = score(doc=417,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.18411686 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9667873 = idf(docFreq=307, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03085695 = queryNorm
        0.7910917 = fieldWeight in 417, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.9667873 = idf(docFreq=307, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=417)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    RSWK
    Archiv / Bibliothek / Demokratie / Digitalisierung / Museum / Öffentlicher Raum / Öffentlichkeit (DNB)
    Bibliothek / Archiv / Museum / Digitalisierung / Demokratie / Öffentlichkeit / Aufsatzsammlung (GBV)
    Subject
    Archiv / Bibliothek / Demokratie / Digitalisierung / Museum / Öffentlicher Raum / Öffentlichkeit (DNB)
    Bibliothek / Archiv / Museum / Digitalisierung / Demokratie / Öffentlichkeit / Aufsatzsammlung (GBV)
  6. Villaespesa, E.; Crider, S.: ¬A critical comparison analysis between human and machine-generated tags for the Metropolitan Museum of Art's collection (2021) 0.02 
    0.01696306 = product of:
  0.13570447 = sum of:
    0.13570447 = weight(_text_:museum in 341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13570447 = score(doc=341,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.18411686 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9667873 = idf(docFreq=307, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03085695 = queryNorm
        0.7370562 = fieldWeight in 341, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.9667873 = idf(docFreq=307, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=341)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Purpose Based on the highlights of The Metropolitan Museum of Art's collection, the purpose of this paper is to examine the similarities and differences between the subject keywords tags assigned by the museum and those produced by three computer vision systems. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses computer vision tools to generate the data and the Getty Research Institute's Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) to compare the subject keyword tags. Findings This paper finds that there are clear opportunities to use computer vision technologies to automatically generate tags that expand the terms used by the museum. This brings a new perspective to the collection that is different from the traditional art historical one. However, the study also surfaces challenges about the accuracy and lack of context within the computer vision results. Practical implications This finding has important implications on how these machine-generated tags complement the current taxonomies and vocabularies inputted in the collection database. In consequence, the museum needs to consider the selection process for choosing which computer vision system to apply to their collection. Furthermore, they also need to think critically about the kind of tags they wish to use, such as colors, materials or objects. Originality/value The study results add to the rapidly evolving field of computer vision within the art information context and provide recommendations of aspects to consider before selecting and implementing these technologies.
  7. Dunn, H.; Bourcier, P.: Nomenclature for museum cataloging (2020) 0.02 
    0.015767435 = product of:
  0.12613948 = sum of:
    0.12613948 = weight(_text_:museum in 5483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12613948 = score(doc=5483,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18411686 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9667873 = idf(docFreq=307, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03085695 = queryNorm
        0.68510556 = fieldWeight in 5483, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.9667873 = idf(docFreq=307, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5483)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    We present an overview of Nomenclature's history, characteristics, structure, use, management, development process, limitations, and future. Nomenclature for Museum Cataloging is a bilingual (English/French) structured and controlled list of object terms organized in a classification system to provide a basis for indexing and cataloging collections of human-made objects. It includes illustrations and bibliographic references as well as a user guide. It is used in the creation and management of object records in human history collections within museums and other organizations, and it focuses on objects relevant to North American history and culture. First published in 1978, Nomenclature is the most extensively used museum classification and controlled vocabulary for historical and ethnological collections in North America and represents thereby a de facto standard in the field. An online reference version of Nomenclature was made available in 2018, and it will be available under open license in 2020.
  8. Tran, Q.-T.: Standardization and the neglect of museum objects : an infrastructure-based approach for inclusive integration of cultural artifacts (2023) 0.02 
    0.015172221 = product of:
  0.121377766 = sum of:
    0.121377766 = weight(_text_:museum in 1136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.121377766 = score(doc=1136,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.18411686 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9667873 = idf(docFreq=307, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03085695 = queryNorm
        0.6592431 = fieldWeight in 1136, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.9667873 = idf(docFreq=307, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1136)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    The paper examines the integration of born-digital and digitized content into an outdated classification system within the Museum of European Cultures in Berlin. It underscores the predicament encountered by smaller to medium-sized cultural institutions as they navigate between adhering to established knowl­edge management systems and preserving an expanding array of contemporary cultural artifacts. The perspective of infrastructure studies is employed to scrutinize the representation of diverse viewpoints and voices within the museum's collections. The study delves into museum personnel's challenges in cataloging and classifying ethnographic objects utilizing a numerical-alphabetical categorization scheme from the 1930s. It presents an analysis of the limitations inherent in this method, along with its implications for the assimilation of emerging forms of born-digital and digitized objects. Through an exploration of the case of category 74, as observed at the Museum of European Cultures, the study illustrates the complexities of replacing pre-existing systems due to their intricate integration into the socio-technical components of the museum's information infrastructure. The paper reflects on how resource-constrained cultural institutions can take a proactive and ethical approach to knowl­edge management, re-evaluating their knowl­edge infrastructure to promote inclusion and ensure adaptability.
  9. Gartner, R.: Metadata in the digital library : building an integrated strategy with XML (2021) 0.01 
    0.0149169145 = product of:
  0.059667658 = sum of:
    0.055449016 = weight(_text_:informationsmanagement in 732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055449016 = score(doc=732,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19105253 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1915555 = idf(docFreq=245, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03085695 = queryNorm
        0.29022917 = fieldWeight in 732, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.1915555 = idf(docFreq=245, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=732)
    0.0042186403 = product of:
      0.01265592 = sum of:
        0.01265592 = weight(_text_:29 in 732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01265592 = score(doc=732,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1085451 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03085695 = queryNorm
            0.11659596 = fieldWeight in 732, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=732)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    BK
    06.35 Informationsmanagement
    Classification
    06.35 Informationsmanagement
    Date
    29. 9.2022 17:57:57
  10. Semar, W.: Informations- und Wissensmanagement (2023) 0.01 
    0.014148103 = product of:
  0.113184825 = sum of:
    0.113184825 = weight(_text_:informationsmanagement in 817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.113184825 = score(doc=817,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19105253 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1915555 = idf(docFreq=245, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03085695 = queryNorm
        0.5924278 = fieldWeight in 817, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          6.1915555 = idf(docFreq=245, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=817)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    In der Literatur wird Informations- und Wissensmanagement oft zusammen und in dieser Reihenfolge betitelt. In der Tat handelt es sich aber um zwei eigenständige Themenbereiche, die sich ergänzen. Ausgangspunkt muss jedoch zunächst das Wissen von Menschen sein, damit man ihnen anschließend die für sie relevante Information zukommen lassen kann. Hierdurch sind bereits die Aufgaben der beiden Bereiche festgelegt. Im Wissensmanagement geht es um das gezielte Organisieren von Wissen, das in den Köpfen der Menschen vorhanden ist. Dadurch, dass Wissen in der Zwischenzeit unbestritten eine der wichtigsten Ressourcen eines Unternehmens bzw. jeglicher Formen einer Organisation ist, steht das Managen des Wissens aller Mitarbeitenden im Vordergrund. Beim Informationsmanagement geht es um das gezielte Organisieren von Information, damit die Mitarbeitenden jederzeit über das relevante Wissen verfügen, um ihre Aufgabe erfüllen zu können. Wissen ist somit etwas Internes, im Kopf der Menschen, während Information von außen kommt, also etwas Externes ist. Die Kulturaspekte und die Fokussierung auf die Mitarbeitenden als Wissensträger stehen im Vordergrund des Wissensmanagements, während beim Informationsmanagement die Informationsversorgung und die dafür notwendige technische Infrastruktur im Vordergrund stehen. Gemäß diesem Konzept gehen wir im Folgenden zunächst auf das Wissensmanagement und anschließend auf das Informationsmanagement ein.
  11. Navarrete, T.; Villaespesa, E.: Image-based information : paintings in Wikipedia (2021) 0.01 
    0.014049673 = product of:
  0.11239739 = sum of:
    0.11239739 = weight(_text_:museum in 177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11239739 = score(doc=177,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.18411686 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9667873 = idf(docFreq=307, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03085695 = queryNorm
        0.6104677 = fieldWeight in 177, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          5.9667873 = idf(docFreq=307, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=177)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Purpose This study aimed at understanding the use of paintings outside of an art-related context, in the English version of Wikipedia. Design/methodology/approach For this investigation, the authors identified 8,104 paintings used in 10,008 articles of the English Wikipedia edition. The authors manually coded the topic of the article in question, documented the number of monthly average views and identified the originating museum. They analysed the use of images based on frequency of use, frequency of view, associated topics and location. Early in the analysis three distinct perspectives emerged: the readers of the online encyclopaedia, the editors of the articles and the museum organisations providing the painting images (directly or indirectly). Findings Wikipedia is a widely used online information resource where images of paintings serve as visual reference to illustrate articles, notably also beyond an art-related topic and where no alternative image is available - as in the case of historic portraits. Editors used paintings as illustration of the work itself or art-related movement, but also as illustration of past events, as alternative to photographs, as well as to represent a concept or technique. Images have been used to illustrate up to 76 articles, evidencing the polysemic nature of paintings. The authors conclude that images of paintings are highly valuable information sources, also beyond an art-related context. They also find that Wikipedia is an important dissemination channel for museum collections. While art-related articles contain greater number of paintings, these receive less views than non-art-related articles containing fewer paintings. Readers of all topics, predominantly history, science and geographic articles, viewed art pieces outside of an art context. Painting images in Wikipedia receive a much larger online audience than the physical painting does when compared to the number of museum onsite visitors. The authors' results confirm the presence of a strong long-tail pattern in the frequency of image use (only 3% of painting images are used in a Wikipedia article), image view and museums represented, characteristic of network dynamics of the Internet.
    Research limitations/implications While this is the first analysis of the complete collection of paintings in the English Wikipedia, the authors' results are conservative as many paintings are not identified as such in Wikidata, used for automatic harvesting. Tools to analyse image view specifically are not yet available and user privacy is highly protected, limiting the disaggregation of user data. This study serves to document a lack of diversity in image availability for global online consumption, favouring well-known Western objects. At the same time, the study evidences the need to diversify the use of images to reflect a more global perspective, particularly where paintings are used to represent concepts of techniques. Practical implications Museums wanting to increase visibility can target the reuse of their collections in non-art-related articles, which received 88% of all views in the authors' sample. Given the few museums collaborating with the Wikimedia Foundation and the apparent inefficiency resulting from leaving the use of paintings as illustration to the crowd, as only 3% of painting images are used, suggests further collaborative efforts to reposition museum content may be beneficial. Social implications This paper highlights the reach of Wikipedia as information source, where museum content can be positioned to reach a greater user group beyond the usual museum visitor, in turn increasing visual and digital literacy. Originality/value This is the first study that documents the frequency of use and views, the topical use and the originating institution of "all the paintings" in the English Wikipedia edition.
  12. Rösch, H.: Informationsethik und Bibliotheksethik : Grundlagen und Praxis (2021) 0.01 
    0.013862254 = product of:
  0.11089803 = sum of:
    0.11089803 = weight(_text_:informationsmanagement in 222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11089803 = score(doc=222,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19105253 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1915555 = idf(docFreq=245, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03085695 = queryNorm
        0.58045834 = fieldWeight in 222, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.1915555 = idf(docFreq=245, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=222)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    BK
    06.35 Informationsmanagement
    Classification
    06.35 Informationsmanagement
  13. Sewing, S.: Bestandserhaltung und Archivierung : Koordinierung auf der Basis eines gemeinsamen Metadatenformates in den deutschen und österreichischen Bibliotheksverbünden (2021) 0.01 
    0.013249567 = product of:
  0.052998267 = sum of:
    0.044636887 = weight(_text_:dokumentation in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044636887 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14414358 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.671349 = idf(docFreq=1124, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03085695 = queryNorm
        0.3096696 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.671349 = idf(docFreq=1124, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
    0.008361382 = product of:
      0.025084145 = sum of:
        0.025084145 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025084145 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108055785 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03085695 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    In den Handlungsempfehlungen der Koordinierungsstelle für die Erhaltung des schriftlichen Kulturguts (KEK) von 2015 (KEK-Handlungsempfehlungen) wird ein nationaler Standard bei der Dokumentation von Bestandserhaltung gefordert: "In den Bibliothekskatalogen sollten künftig für den verbundübergreifenden Abgleich Bestandserhaltungsmaßnahmen für die Bestände ab 1851 [.] in standardisierter Form dokumentiert und recherchierbar gemacht werden. Dies bedarf einer gemeinsamen Festlegung mit den Bibliotheksverbünden [.]." In den KEK-Handlungsempfehlungen werden auf der Basis einer im Jahr 2015 erfolgten Erhebung für Monografien fast neun Millionen Bände aus dem Zeitabschnitt 1851-1990 als Pflichtexemplare an Bundes- und Ländereinrichtungen angegeben, die akut vom Papierzerfall bedroht und als erste Stufe einer Gesamtstrategie zu entsäuern sind. Ein Ziel der KEK ist es, standardisierte und zertifizierte Verfahren zur Massenentsäuerung zu fördern. Im Metadatenformat sind zunächst fünf Verfahren der Massenentsäuerung in Form von kontrolliertem Vokabular dokumentiert: DEZ, Mg3/MBG, METE, MgO, MMMC[2]. Mit diesen Angaben, die gezielt selektiert werden können, ist mittel- und langfristig die Anwendung einzelner Verfahren der Massenentsäuerung abrufbar und statistisch auswertbar.
    Date
    22. 5.2021 12:43:05
  14. Miksa, S.D.: Cataloging principles and objectives : history and development (2021) 0.01 
    0.009103332 = product of:
  0.07282665 = sum of:
    0.07282665 = weight(_text_:museum in 702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07282665 = score(doc=702,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18411686 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9667873 = idf(docFreq=307, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03085695 = queryNorm
        0.39554584 = fieldWeight in 702, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9667873 = idf(docFreq=307, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=702)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Cataloging principles and objectives guide the formation of cataloging rules governing the organization of information within the library catalog, as well as the function of the catalog itself. Changes in technologies wrought by the internet and the web have been the driving forces behind shifting cataloging practice and reconfigurations of cataloging rules. Modern cataloging principles and objectives started in 1841 with the creation of Panizzi's 91 Rules for the British Museum and gained momentum with Charles Cutter's Rules for Descriptive Cataloging (1904). The first Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (ICP) was adopted in 1961, holding their place through such codifications as AACR and AACR2 in the 1970s and 1980s. Revisions accelerated starting in 2003 with the three original FR models. The Library Reference Model (LRM) in 2017 acted as a catalyst for the evolution of principles and objectives culminating in the creation of Resource Description and Access (RDA) in 2013.
  15. Dietz, K.: en.wikipedia.org > 6 Mio. Artikel (2020) 0.01 
    0.007883894 = product of:
  0.031535577 = sum of:
    0.024504509 = product of:
      0.12252254 = sum of:
        0.12252254 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12252254 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26160556 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03085695 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0070310673 = product of:
      0.0210932 = sum of:
        0.0210932 = weight(_text_:29 in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0210932 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1085451 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03085695 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Content
    "Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."
  16. Koster, L.: Persistent identifiers for heritage objects (2020) 0.01 
    0.0075861104 = product of:
  0.060688883 = sum of:
    0.060688883 = weight(_text_:museum in 5718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060688883 = score(doc=5718,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18411686 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9667873 = idf(docFreq=307, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03085695 = queryNorm
        0.32962155 = fieldWeight in 5718, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9667873 = idf(docFreq=307, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5718)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Persistent identifiers (PID's) are essential for getting access and referring to library, archive and museum (LAM) collection objects in a sustainable and unambiguous way, both internally and externally. Heritage institutions need a universal policy for the use of PID's in order to have an efficient digital infrastructure at their disposal and to achieve optimal interoperability, leading to open data, open collections and efficient resource management. Here the discussion is limited to PID's that institutions can assign to objects they own or administer themselves. PID's for people, subjects etc. can be used by heritage institutions, but are generally managed by other parties. The first part of this article consists of a general theoretical description of persistent identifiers. First of all, I discuss the questions of what persistent identifiers are and what they are not, and what is needed to administer and use them. The most commonly used existing PID systems are briefly characterized. Then I discuss the types of objects PID's can be assigned to. This section concludes with an overview of the requirements that apply if PIDs should also be used for linked data. The second part examines current infrastructural practices, and existing PID systems and their advantages and shortcomings. Based on these practical issues and the pros and cons of existing PID systems a list of requirements for PID systems is presented which is used to address a number of practical considerations. This section concludes with a number of recommendations.
  17. Acker, A.: Emulation practices for software preservation in libraries, archives, and museums (2021) 0.01 
    0.0075861104 = product of:
  0.060688883 = sum of:
    0.060688883 = weight(_text_:museum in 334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060688883 = score(doc=334,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18411686 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9667873 = idf(docFreq=307, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03085695 = queryNorm
        0.32962155 = fieldWeight in 334, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9667873 = idf(docFreq=307, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=334)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Emulation practices are computational, technical processes that allow for one system to reproduce the functions and results of another. This article reports on findings from research following three small teams of information professionals as they implemented emulation practices into their digital preservation programs at a technology museum, a university research library, and a university research archive and technology lab. Results suggest that the distributed teams in this cohort of preservationists have developed different emulation practices for particular kinds of "emulation encounters" in supporting different types of access. I discuss the implications of these findings for digital preservation research and emulation initiatives providing access to software or software-dependent objects, showing how implications of these findings have significance for those developing software preservation workflows and building emulation capacities. These findings suggest that different emulation practices for preservation, research access, and exhibition undertaken in libraries, archives, and museums result in different forms of access to preserved software-accessing information and experiential access. In examining particular types of access, this research calls into question software emulation as a single, static preservation strategy for information institutions and challenges researchers to examine new forms of access and descriptive representation emerging from these digital preservation strategies.
  18. Brannon, B.; Buhler, A.G.; Cataldo, T.T.; Faniel, I.M.; Connaway, L.S.; Valenza, J.K.; Cyr, C.: Genre containers : building a theoretical framework for studying formats in information behavior (2022) 0.01 
    0.0075861104 = product of:
  0.060688883 = sum of:
    0.060688883 = weight(_text_:museum in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060688883 = score(doc=532,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18411686 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9667873 = idf(docFreq=307, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03085695 = queryNorm
        0.32962155 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9667873 = idf(docFreq=307, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Prior studies have shown high-level differences in people's perception and use of various information formats. However, the lack of a coherent and theoretically informed framework of elements of format has inhibited a nuanced understanding of the role that formats play in information behavior. This paper draws on theories from the field of rhetoric and composition to ground the study of information format in a social constructivist perspective that foregrounds action in context. Specifically, rhetorical genre theory is discussed in detail and the limitations of previous information behavior studies using rhetorical genre theory are explored. One of the main problems of earlier studies is confusing genres and their containers. This paper introduces and defines the concept of containers as typified ways of collecting and presenting texts of certain genres for publication. Building on rhetorical genre theory, the paper offers a theoretical exploration of the role that containers play in the formal and/or public sharing of information within discourse communities. An illustrative example of the concepts applied to data from an Institute of Museum and Library Services funded study is provided.
  19. Assfalg, R.: Metadaten (2023) 0.01 
    0.007439481 = product of:
  0.05951585 = sum of:
    0.05951585 = weight(_text_:dokumentation in 787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05951585 = score(doc=787,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14414358 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.671349 = idf(docFreq=1124, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03085695 = queryNorm
        0.41289282 = fieldWeight in 787, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.671349 = idf(docFreq=1124, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=787)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Bei der Betrachtung von Datensätzen in relationalen Datenbanksystemen, von Datenmengen im Kontext von Big Data, von Ausprägungen gängiger XML-Anwendungen oder von Referenzdatenbeständen im Bereich Information und Dokumentation (IuD), fällt eine wichtige Gemeinsamkeit auf: Diese Bestände benötigen eine Beschreibung ihrer inneren Struktur. Bei diesen Strukturbeschreibungen handelt es sich also sozusagen um "Daten über Daten", und diese können kurz gefasst auch als Metadaten bezeichnet werden. Hierzu gehören Syntaxelemente und ggf. eine Spezifikation, wie diese Syntaxelemente angewendet werden.
  20. Bekavac, B.: Informations-, Kommunikationstechnologien- und Webtechnologien (2023) 0.01 
    0.007439481 = product of:
  0.05951585 = sum of:
    0.05951585 = weight(_text_:dokumentation in 811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05951585 = score(doc=811,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14414358 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.671349 = idf(docFreq=1124, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03085695 = queryNorm
        0.41289282 = fieldWeight in 811, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.671349 = idf(docFreq=1124, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=811)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Der Beitrag lehnt sich an die Artikel des Autors aus den vorangehenden Auflagen zu den Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation an. Zunächst wird eine kurze Übersicht der Informatik und des Internets anhand von wichtigen Meilensteinen wiedergegeben. Aufbauend darauf werden einige zentrale Informatik- Konzepte sowie grundlegende Webtechnologien etwas näher ausgeführt. Zum Schluss werden zwei spezifische Webprotokolle vorgestellt, die auf Grund ihrer informationswissenschaftlichen Bedeutung ausgewählt wurden.

Authors

Languages

  • e 135
  • d 78
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 191
  • el 45
  • m 10
  • p 4
  • s 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications