Search (71 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Normdateien"
  1. Salo, D.: Name authority control in institutional repositories (2009) 0.05 
    0.051130302 = product of:
  0.102260605 = sum of:
    0.07301276 = weight(_text_:open in 2976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07301276 = score(doc=2976,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.3482767 = fieldWeight in 2976, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2976)
    0.029247843 = product of:
      0.058495685 = sum of:
        0.058495685 = weight(_text_:access in 2976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058495685 = score(doc=2976,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.3707187 = fieldWeight in 2976, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2976)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Neither the standards nor the software underlying institutional repositories anticipated performing name authority control on widely disparate metadata from highly unreliable sources. Without it, though, both machines and humans are stymied in their efforts to access and aggregate information by author. Many organizations are awakening to the problems and possibilities of name authority control, but without better coordination, their efforts will only confuse matters further. Local heuristics-based name-disambiguation software may help those repository managers who can implement it. For the time being, however, most repository managers can only control their own name lists as best they can after deposit while they advocate for better systems and services.
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes Metadata and Open Access Repositories
  2. Pampel, H.; Fenner, M.: ORCID - Offener Standard zur Vernetzung von Forschenden (2016) 0.05 
    0.047630534 = product of:
  0.09526107 = sum of:
    0.08344315 = weight(_text_:open in 2839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08344315 = score(doc=2839,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.39803052 = fieldWeight in 2839, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2839)
    0.0118179135 = product of:
      0.023635827 = sum of:
        0.023635827 = weight(_text_:access in 2839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023635827 = score(doc=2839,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.14979297 = fieldWeight in 2839, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2839)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Das internationale ORCID-Konsortium vernetzt Publizierende mit ihren Aufsätzen und Forschungsdaten über eine eindeutige ID. Weltweit besitzen bereits über 2 Millionen Forschende eine solche Kennung. Um ORCID in Deutschland zu fördern, wurde das Projektvorhaben "ORCID DE - Förderung der Open Researcher and Contributor ID in Deutschland" gebildet. Die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) hat die Förderung des auf drei Jahre angelegten Projekts im Februar 2016 bewilligt. Durch die Integration in über 230 digitale Informationsinfrastrukturen erleichtert die Open Researcher and Contributor ID, kurz ORCID, die Pflege der Publikationsliste für Forscherinnen und Forscher. Die Idee dahinter ist folgende: Jede Person, die im wissenschaftlichen Arbeitsprozess einen Beitrag leistet, kann sich über die eindeutige ORCID-Kennung mit ihren Publikationen, Forschungsdaten und anderen Produkten des Forschungsprozesses (zum Beispiel Software) eindeutig vernetzen. Damit werden diese Objekte sichtbar und technisch verlässlich mit ihren Erschafferinnen und Erschaffern verbunden. ORCID bietet das Potenzial, bisher verteilte Informationen standardisiert zusammenzuführen und damit einen Überblick auf die Forschungsleistung von Forschenden zu ermöglichen. Durch die Offenheit des Systems und des großen internationalen Konsortiums ist ORCID auf dem Weg, ein langfristig gültiger Identifikator im wissenschaftlichen Alltag zu werden.
    Ziel des DFG-Projekts ORCID DE ist es, die vielerorts erwogene Implementierung der ORCID an Hochschulen und außeruniversitären Forschungseinrichtungen durch einen übergreifenden Ansatz nachhaltig zu unterstützen. Dabei stehen organisatorische, technische und rechtliche Fragen gleichermaßen im Fokus. Neben der Schaffung einer zentralen Anlaufstelle für Hochschulen und außeruniversitäre Forschungseinrichtungen sind die Vernetzung und Verbreitung der ORCID im Bereich von Open-Access-Repositorien und -Publikationdiensten sowie die Verzahnung mit der Gemeinsame Normdatei (GND) wesentliche Aspekte des Projekts. Projektpartner von ORCID DE sind das Helmholtz Open Science Koordinationsbüro am Deutschen GeoForschungsZentrum GFZ, die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek und die Universitätsbibliothek Bielefeld. Das Projekt wurde durch die Deutsche Initiative für Netzwerkinformation (DINI) initiiert.
  3. Leth, P.: Subject access - the Swedish approach (2007) 0.04 
    0.036648966 = product of:
  0.14659587 = sum of:
    0.14659587 = sum of:
      0.07090748 = weight(_text_:access in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07090748 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.4493789 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
      0.07568839 = weight(_text_:22 in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07568839 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 131, 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=131)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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".
  4. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.03 
    0.033960193 = product of:
  0.06792039 = sum of:
    0.05215197 = weight(_text_:open in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05215197 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.015768414 = product of:
      0.03153683 = sum of:
        0.03153683 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03153683 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    More and more users index everything on their own in the web 2.0. There are services for links, videos, pictures, books, encyclopaedic articles and scientific articles. All these services are library independent. But must that really be? Can't libraries help with their experience and tools to make user indexing better? On the experience of a project from German language Wikipedia together with the German person authority files (Personen Namen Datei - PND) located at German National Library (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek) I would like to show what is possible. How users can and will use the authority files, if we let them. We will take a look how the project worked and what we can learn for future projects. Conclusions - Authority files can have a role in the web 2.0 - there must be an open interface/ service for retrieval - everything that is indexed on the net with authority files can be easy integrated in a federated search - O'Reilly: You have to found ways that your data get more important that more it will be used
    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".
  5. DiLauro, T.; Choudhury, G.S.; Patton, M.; Warner, J.W.; Brown, E.W.: Automated name authority control and enhanced searching in the Levy collection (2001) 0.03 
    0.029217314 = product of:
  0.058434628 = sum of:
    0.041721575 = weight(_text_:open in 1160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041721575 = score(doc=1160,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.19901526 = fieldWeight in 1160, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1160)
    0.016713053 = product of:
      0.033426106 = sum of:
        0.033426106 = weight(_text_:access in 1160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033426106 = score(doc=1160,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.21183924 = fieldWeight in 1160, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1160)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This paper is the second in a series in D-Lib Magazine and describes a workflow management system being developed by the Digital Knowledge Center (DKC) at the Milton S. Eisenhower Library (MSEL) of The Johns Hopkins University. Based on experience from digitizing the Lester S. Levy Collection of Sheet Music, it was apparent that large-scale digitization efforts require a significant amount of human labor that is both time-consuming and costly. Consequently, this workflow management system aims to reduce the amount of human labor and time for large-scale digitization projects. The mission of this second phase of the project ("Levy II") can be summarized as follows: * Reduce costs for large collection ingestion by creating a suite of open-source processes, tools, and interfaces for workflow management * Increase access capabilities by providing a suite of research tools * Demonstrate utility of tools and processes with a subset of the online Levy Collection The cornerstones of the workflow management system include optical music recognition (OMR) software and an automated name authority control system (ANAC). The OMR software generates a logical representation of the score for sound generation, music searching, and musicological research. The ANAC disambiguates names, associating each name with an individual (e.g., the composer Septimus Winner also published under the pseudonyms Alice Hawthorne and Apsley Street, among others). Complementing the workflow tools, a suite of research tools focuses upon enhanced searching capabilities through the development and application of a fast, disk-based search engine for lyrics and music and the incorporation of an XML structure for metadata. The first paper (Choudhury et al. 2001) described the OMR software and musical components of Levy II. This paper focuses on the metadata and intellectual access components that include automated name authority control and the aforementioned search engine.
  6. Kaiser, M.; Lieder, H.J.; Majcen, K.; Vallant, H.: New ways of sharing and using authority information : the LEAF project (2003) 0.02 
    0.022809012 = product of:
  0.045618024 = sum of:
    0.026075985 = weight(_text_:open in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026075985 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.12438454 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.019542038 = product of:
      0.039084077 = sum of:
        0.039084077 = weight(_text_:access in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039084077 = score(doc=1166,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.24769685 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article presents an overview of the LEAF project (Linking and Exploring Authority Files)1, which has set out to provide a framework for international, collaborative work in the sector of authority data with respect to authority control. Elaborating the virtues of authority control in today's Web environment is an almost futile exercise, since so much has been said and written about it in the last few years.2 The World Wide Web is generally understood to be poorly structured-both with regard to content and to locating required information. Highly structured databases might be viewed as small islands of precision within this chaotic environment. Though the Web in general or any particular structured database would greatly benefit from increased authority control, it should be noted that our following considerations only refer to authority control with regard to databases of "memory institutions" (i.e., libraries, archives, and museums). Moreover, when talking about authority records, we exclusively refer to personal name authority records that describe a specific person. Although different types of authority records could indeed be used in similar ways to the ones presented in this article, discussing those different types is outside the scope of both the LEAF project and this article. Personal name authority records-as are all other "authorities"-are maintained as separate records and linked to various kinds of descriptive records. Name authority records are usually either kept in independent databases or in separate tables in the database containing the descriptive records. This practice points at a crucial benefit: by linking any number of descriptive records to an authorized name record, the records related to this entity are collocated in the database. Variant forms of the authorized name are referenced in the authority records and thus ensure the consistency of the database while enabling search and retrieval operations that produce accurate results. On one hand, authority control may be viewed as a positive prerequisite of a consistent catalogue; on the other, the creation of new authority records is a very time consuming and expensive undertaking. As a consequence, various models of providing access to existing authority records have emerged: the Library of Congress and the French National Library (Bibliothèque nationale de France), for example, make their authority records available to all via a web-based search service.3 In Germany, the Personal Name Authority File (PND, Personennamendatei4) maintained by the German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek, Frankfurt/Main) offers a different approach to shared access: within a closed network, participating institutions have online access to their pooled data. The number of recent projects and initiatives that have addressed the issue of authority control in one way or another is considerable.5 Two important current initiatives should be mentioned here: The Name Authority Cooperative (NACO) and Virtual International Authority File (VIAF).
    NACO was established in 1976 and is hosted by the Library of Congress. At the beginning of 2003, nearly 400 institutions were involved in this undertaking, including 43 institutions from outside the United States.6 Despite the enormous success of NACO and the impressive annual growth of the initiative, there are requirements for participation that form an obstacle for many institutions: they have to follow the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) and employ the MARC217 data format. Participating institutions also have to belong to either OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) or RLG (Research Libraries Group) in order to be able to contribute records, and they have to provide a specified minimum number of authority records per year. A recent proof of concept project of the Library of Congress, OCLC and the German National Library-Virtual International Authority File (VIAF)8-will, in its first phase, test automatic linking of the records of the Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF) and the German Personal Name Authority File by using matching algorithms and software developed by OCLC. The results are expected to form the basis of a "Virtual International Authority File". The project will then test the maintenance of the virtual authority file by employing the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)9 to harvest the metadata for new, updated, and deleted records. When using the "Virtual International Authority File" a cataloguer will be able to check the system to see whether the authority record he wants to establish already exists. The final phase of the project will test possibilities for displaying records in the preferred language and script of the end user. Currently, there are still some clear limitations associated with the ways in which authority records are used by memory institutions. One of the main problems has to do with limited access: generally only large institutions or those that are part of a library network have unlimited online access to permanently updated authority records. Smaller institutions outside these networks usually have to fall back on less efficient ways of obtaining authority data, or have no access at all. Cross-domain sharing of authority data between libraries, archives, museums and other memory institutions simply does not happen at present. Public users are, by and large, not even aware that such things as name authority records exist and are excluded from access to these information resources.
  7. ORCID (2015) 0.02 
    0.022126209 = product of:
  0.088504836 = sum of:
    0.088504836 = weight(_text_:open in 1870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088504836 = score(doc=1870,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.42217514 = fieldWeight in 1870, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1870)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) ist ein nicht-proprietärer, überwiegend numerischer Code, der der eindeutigen Identifizierung wissenschaftlicher Autoren dienen soll.
    Content
    ORCID soll die elektronische Zuordnung von Publikation und Autoren ermöglichen. Dies ist notwendig, da verschiedene Autoren gleiche Namen haben können, Namen sich ändern (z. B. bei Heirat) und Namen in verschiedenen Publikationen unterschiedlich angegeben werden (z. B. einmal die ausgeschriebenen Vornamen, ein anderes Mal aber nur die Initialen). ORCID soll zum De-facto-Standard für die Autorenidentifikation wissenschaftlicher Publikationen werden. Die Etablierung wird von der Non-Profit-Organisation Open Researcher Contributor Identification Initiative organisiert. Zu den Gründungsmitgliedern der Initiative gehören zahlreiche wissenschaftliche Verlagsgruppen (z. B. Elsevier, Nature Publishing Group, Springer) und Forschungsorganisationen (z. B. EMBO, CERN). Die Planungen für ORCID wurden 2010 auf Umfragen gestützt. ORCID ging am 16. Oktober 2012 offiziell an den Start. Am Jahresende 2012 hatte ORCID 42.918 Registrierte, Jahresende 2013 waren es 460.000 Registrierte und im November 2014 hatte ORCID 1 Million Autorenidentifikationen ausgestellt. Vgl. auch den Zusammenhang mit der GND und den Erfassungsleitfaden der DNB unter: https://wiki.dnb.de/x/vYYGAw.
  8. Hartmann, S.; Pampel, H.: GND und ORCID : Brückenschlag zwischen zwei Systemen zur Autorenidentifikation (2017) 0.02 
    0.022126209 = product of:
  0.088504836 = sum of:
    0.088504836 = weight(_text_:open in 5115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088504836 = score(doc=5115,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.42217514 = fieldWeight in 5115, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5115)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Die Uneindeutigkeit von Personennamen erschwert im Rahmen der bibliothekarischen Erschließung die eindeutige Zuordnung von Autorinnen und Autoren zu ihren Werken. Bibliotheken im deutschsprachigen Raum adressieren das Problem der Mehrdeutigkeit von Namen durch den Einsatz der Gemeinsamen Normdatei (GND). Die internationale Initiative ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) verfolgt das gleiche Ziel. Akteur ist hier jedoch die einzelne Wissenschaftlerin oder der einzelne Wissenschaftler. Das Projekt "ORCID DE - Förderung der Open Researcher and Contributor ID in Deutschland" hat sich, dank der Förderung der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), unter anderem zum Ziel gesetzt, einen Brückenschlag zwischen den beiden Systemen - GND und ORCID - zu schaffen, um damit die Datenqualität beider Systeme wechselseitig zu erhöhen. Der vorliegende Beitrag gibt einen Überblick über ORCID und das Projekt ORCID DE. Dabei wird insbesondere auf die angestrebte Verlinkung von GND und ORCID eingegangen.
  9. Horn, M.E.: "Garbage" in, "refuse and refuse disposal" out : making the most of the subject authority file in the OPAC (2002) 0.02 
    0.021378566 = product of:
  0.08551426 = sum of:
    0.08551426 = sum of:
      0.0413627 = weight(_text_:access in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0413627 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 156, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=156)
      0.04415156 = weight(_text_:22 in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04415156 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 156, 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=156)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Subject access in the OPAC, as discussed in this article, is predicated on two different kinds of searching: subject (authority, alphabetic, or controlled vocabulary searching) or keyword (uncontrolled, free text, natural language vocabulary). The literature has focused on demonstrating that both approaches are needed, but very few authors address the need to integrate keyword into authority searching. The article discusses this difference and compares, with a query on the term garbage, search results in two online catalogs, one that performs keyword searches through the authority file and one where only bibliographic records are included in keyword searches.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  10. Vellucci, S.L.: Metadata and authority control (2000) 0.02 
    0.021378566 = product of:
  0.08551426 = sum of:
    0.08551426 = sum of:
      0.0413627 = weight(_text_:access in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0413627 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
      0.04415156 = weight(_text_:22 in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04415156 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 180, 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=180)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    A variety of information communities have developed metadata schemes to meet the needs of their own users. The ability of libraries to incorporate and use multiple metadata schemes in current library systems will depend on the compatibility of imported data with existing catalog data. Authority control will play an important role in metadata interoperability. In this article, I discuss factors for successful authority control in current library catalogs, which include operation in a well-defined and bounded universe, application of principles and standard practices to access point creation, reference to authoritative lists, and bibliographic record creation by highly trained individuals. Metadata characteristics and environmental models are examined and the likelihood of successful authority control is explored for a variety of metadata environments.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  11. Byrum, J.D.: ¬The emerging global bibliographical network : the era of international standardization in the development of cataloging policy (2000) 0.02 
    0.018329866 = product of:
  0.073319465 = sum of:
    0.073319465 = sum of:
      0.041782632 = weight(_text_:access in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041782632 = score(doc=190,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.26479906 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
      0.03153683 = weight(_text_:22 in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03153683 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 190, 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=190)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Catalogers have become interdependent in their pursuit to provide bibliographic control and access. This interdependency has brought with it the need for greater agreement in applying common cataloging policies and rules. The expanded application of AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules) is fostering greater uniformity in the provision of bibliographic description and access. The rules have been translated into numerous languages and used in European, Middle Eastern, and Latin American countries. Cataloging committees and individual libraries in Europe and South Africa have expressed strong interest in adopting, adapting, or aligning with AACR2. PCC (Program for Cooperative Cataloguing) is one of the most successful cooperative cataloging efforts and has a considerable international component, which encourages the use of AACR, LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Headings), and MARC. AACR2 is successful on an international level because it is based in internationally developed standards, including ISBDs and the Paris Principles. ISBDs (International Standard Bibliographic Description) and the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records are examples of the contributions that IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) has made to the internationalization of cataloging. IFLA sponsored the international conference that resulted in the Paris Principles as well as subsequent projects to craft international policy in relation to uniform headings for persons, corporate bodies, and titles.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  12. Zhu, L.; Xu, A.; Deng, S.; Heng, G.; Li, X.: Entity management using Wikidata for cultural heritage information (2024) 0.02 
    0.01825319 = product of:
  0.07301276 = sum of:
    0.07301276 = weight(_text_:open in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07301276 = score(doc=975,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.3482767 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Entity management in a Linked Open Data (LOD) environment is a process of associating a unique, persistent, and dereferenceable Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) with a single entity. It allows data from various sources to be reused and connected to the Web. It can help improve data quality and enable more efficient workflows. This article describes a semi-automated entity management project conducted by the "Wikidata: WikiProject Chinese Culture and Heritage Group," explores the challenges and opportunities in describing Chinese women poets and historical places in Wikidata, the largest crowdsourcing LOD platform in the world, and discusses lessons learned and future opportunities.
  13. Provost, A. Le; Nicolas, .: IdRef, Paprika and Qualinka : atoolbox for authority data quality and interoperability (2020) 0.02 
    0.01825319 = product of:
  0.07301276 = sum of:
    0.07301276 = weight(_text_:open in 1076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07301276 = score(doc=1076,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.3482767 = fieldWeight in 1076, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1076)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Authority data has always been at the core of library catalogues. Today, authority data is reference data on a wider scale. The former authorities of the "Sudoc" union catalogue mutated into "IdRef", a read/write platform of open data and services which seeks to become a national supplier of reliable identifiers for French universities. To support their dissemination and comply with high quality standards, Paprika and Qualinka have been added to our toolbox, to expedite the massive and secure linking of scientific publications to IdRef authorities.
  14. Rotenberg, E.; Kushmerick, A.: ¬The author challenge : identification of self in the scholarly literature (2011) 0.02 
    0.015645592 = product of:
  0.062582366 = sum of:
    0.062582366 = weight(_text_:open in 1332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062582366 = score(doc=1332,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.2985229 = fieldWeight in 1332, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1332)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Considering the expansion of research output across the globe, along with the growing demand for quantitative tracking of research outcomes by government authorities and research institutions, the challenges of author identity are increasing. In recent years, a number of initiatives to help solve the author "name game" have been launched from all areas of the scholarly information market space. This article introduces the various author identification tools and services Thomson Reuters provides, including Distinct Author Sets and ResearcherID-which reflect a combination of automated clustering and author participation-as well as the use of other data types, such as grants and patents, to expand the universe of author identification. Industry-wide initiatives such as the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) are also described. Future author-related developments in ResearcherID and Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge are also included.
  15. Dunn, H.; Bourcier, P.: Nomenclature for museum cataloging (2020) 0.02 
    0.015645592 = product of:
  0.062582366 = sum of:
    0.062582366 = weight(_text_:open in 5483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062582366 = score(doc=5483,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.2985229 = fieldWeight in 5483, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5483)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  16. Tillett, B.B.: Authority control at the international level (2000) 0.02 
    0.015270403 = product of:
  0.06108161 = sum of:
    0.06108161 = sum of:
      0.029544784 = weight(_text_:access in 191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029544784 = score(doc=191,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 191, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=191)
      0.03153683 = weight(_text_:22 in 191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03153683 = score(doc=191,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 191, 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=191)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    International efforts to provide authority control include the work of IFLA, the AUTHOR Project funded by the European Commission, and related work conducted under the auspices of the ICA/CDS. IFLA developed the guidelines Form and Structure of Corporate Headings, documented the formulation of names along the lines of national origin in its publication Names of Persons, and published Guidelines for Authority and Reference Entries. Attention has shifted from a single authority record for each entity that would be shared internationally through the exchange of records to linking parallel authority records for the same entity. The access control of the future will account for difference in cataloging rules, transliteration standards, and cultural differences within the same language as well as for the need for different languages and scripts and will enable users to display the script and form of a heading that they expect. Project AUTHOR is a shared set of resource national authority files that used selections from the authority files of France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, and Belgium. The prototype tested an adaptation of Z39.50 server software for authority records and displays for user interface. An international standard for authority control records has been developed for corporate bodies, persons, and families. Through joint meetings efforts have been synchronized to develop authority control at the international level.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  17. Kasprzik, A.; Kett, J.: Vorschläge für eine Weiterentwicklung der Sacherschließung und Schritte zur fortgesetzten strukturellen Aufwertung der GND (2018) 0.01 
    0.013037993 = product of:
  0.05215197 = sum of:
    0.05215197 = weight(_text_:open in 4599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05215197 = score(doc=4599,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 4599, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4599)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Aufgrund der fortgesetzten Publikationsflut stellt sich immer dringender die Frage, wie die Schwellen für die Titel- und Normdatenpflege gesenkt werden können - sowohl für die intellektuelle als auch die automatisierte Sacherschließung. Zu einer Verbesserung der Daten- und Arbeitsqualität in der Sacherschließung kann beigetragen werden a) durch eine flexible Visualisierung der Gemeinsamen Normdatei (GND) und anderer Wissensorganisationssysteme, so dass deren Graphstruktur intuitiv erfassbar wird, und b) durch eine investigative Analyse ihrer aktuellen Struktur und die Entwicklung angepasster automatisierter Methoden zur Ermittlung und Korrektur fehlerhafter Muster. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (DNB) prüft im Rahmen des GND-Entwicklungsprogramms 2017-2021, welche Bedingungen für eine fruchtbare community-getriebene Open-Source-Entwicklung entsprechender Werkzeuge gegeben sein müssen. Weiteres Potential steckt in einem langfristigen Übergang zu einer Darstellung von Titel- und Normdaten in Beschreibungssprachen im Sinne des Semantic Web (RDF; OWL, SKOS). So profitiert die GND von der Interoperabilität mit anderen kontrollierten Vokabularen und von einer erleichterten Interaktion mit anderen Fach-Communities und kann umgekehrt auch außerhalb des Bibliothekswesens zu einem noch attraktiveren Wissensorganisationssystem werden. Darüber hinaus bieten die Ansätze aus dem Semantic Web die Möglichkeit, stärker formalisierte, strukturierende Satellitenvokabulare rund um die GND zu entwickeln. Daraus ergeben sich nicht zuletzt auch neue Perspektiven für die automatisierte Sacherschließung. Es wäre lohnend, näher auszuloten, wie und inwieweit semantisch-logische Verfahren den bestehenden Methodenmix bereichern können.
  18. Lorenz, B.; Steffens, M.: Systematik und Schlagwortnormdatei zwischen Universalität und Individualität (1997) 0.01 
    0.01103789 = product of:
  0.04415156 = sum of:
    0.04415156 = product of:
      0.08830312 = sum of:
        0.08830312 = weight(_text_:22 in 5819) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08830312 = score(doc=5819,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5819, 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=5819)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    24. 5.2001 19:22:37
  19. Balzer, D.; Fischer, B.K.; Kett, J.; Laux, S.; Lill, J.M.; Lindenthal, J.; Manecke, M.; Rosenkötter, M.; Vitzthum, A.: ¬Das Projekt "GND für Kulturdaten"; (GND4C) (2019) 0.01 
    0.010430394 = product of:
  0.041721575 = sum of:
    0.041721575 = weight(_text_:open in 5721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041721575 = score(doc=5721,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.19901526 = fieldWeight in 5721, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5721)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Die zunehmende Präsenz von Museen, Archiven, Forschungs- und anderen Kulturgut verwahrenden Einrichtungen mit ihren Sammlungsobjekten im Internet verstärkt das Bedürfnis nach Vernetzung der Daten. Eine Voraussetzung für die semantische Verknüpfung von Datensätzen sind gemeinsam verwendete Normdaten. Die Gemeinsame Normdatei (GND), geführt von der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek, ist ein weithin anerkanntes Vokabular für die Beschreibung und das Information­Retrieval in der Bibliothekswelt. Veröffentlicht als Linked Open Data, unterstützt die GND semantische Interoperabilität und Nachnutzung von Daten. Objekte aus verschiedenen Häusern können zusammen aufgefunden werden und disziplinenübergreifende Forschung wird erleichtert. Doch um die GND sparten­ und fächerübergreifend öffnen zu können, muss sie an die neuen Anforderungen angepasst und aktiv zwischen den Communities geteilt werden. In den vier Teilen des Beitrags geben Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter des DFG­geförderten Projekts "GND für Kulturdaten" (GND4C) einen Einblick in den Stand der Untersuchungen, welche konzeptuellen Veränderungen erforderlich sein werden und wo sich die GND bereits heute als flexibel genug für die Wünsche der neuen Anwendungen erweist.
  20. Bourdon, F.: Funktionale Anforderungen an bibliographische Datensätze und ein internationales Nummernsystem für Normdaten : wie weit kann Normierung durch Technik unterstützt werden? (2001) 0.01 
    0.009461049 = product of:
  0.037844196 = sum of:
    0.037844196 = product of:
      0.07568839 = sum of:
        0.07568839 = weight(_text_:22 in 6888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07568839 = score(doc=6888,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6888, 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=6888)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    26.12.2011 12:30:22

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 51
  • d 18

Types

  • a 61
  • el 16
  • b 2
  • m 1
  • p 1
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes