Search (214 results, page 11 of 11)

8.853288E-4 = product of:
  0.007967959 = sum of:
    0.007967959 = product of:
      0.015935918 = sum of:
        0.015935918 = weight(_text_:22 in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015935918 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The proliferation of discipline-specific metadata schemes contributes to artificial barriers that can impede interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. The authors considered this problem by examining the domains, objectives, and architectures of nine metadata schemes used to document scientific data in the physical, life, and social sciences. They used a mixed-methods content analysis and Greenberg's () metadata objectives, principles, domains, and architectural layout (MODAL) framework, and derived 22 metadata-related goals from textual content describing each metadata scheme. Relationships are identified between the domains (e.g., scientific discipline and type of data) and the categories of scheme objectives. For each strong correlation (>0.6), a Fisher's exact test for nonparametric data was used to determine significance (p < .05). Significant relationships were found between the domains and objectives of the schemes. Schemes describing observational data are more likely to have "scheme harmonization" (compatibility and interoperability with related schemes) as an objective; schemes with the objective "abstraction" (a conceptual model exists separate from the technical implementation) also have the objective "sufficiency" (the scheme defines a minimal amount of information to meet the needs of the community); and schemes with the objective "data publication" do not have the objective "element refinement." The analysis indicates that many metadata-driven goals expressed by communities are independent of scientific discipline or the type of data, although they are constrained by historical community practices and workflows as well as the technological environment at the time of scheme creation. The analysis reveals 11 fundamental metadata goals for metadata documenting scientific data in support of sharing research data across disciplines and domains. The authors report these results and highlight the need for more metadata-related research, particularly in the context of recent funding agency policy changes.

8.1556925E-4 = product of:
  0.007340123 = sum of:
    0.007340123 = product of:
      0.014680246 = sum of:
        0.014680246 = weight(_text_:web in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014680246 = score(doc=4872,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.15297705 = fieldWeight in 4872, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4872)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Content

"1. Die Konferenz Vom 12. bis 15. September 2005 fand in Leganés (Madrid) die "International Conference an Dublin Core and Metadata Applications" mit dem Thema "Vocabularies in Practice" statt [DC2005]. Gastgeber war der Fachbereich Bibliothekswesen und Dokumentation der "Universidad Carlos III de Madrid" zusammen mit dem Institut "Agustin Millares" für Dokumentation und Wissensmanagement. Den 214 Teilnehmern aus 33 Ländern wurden 14 ausführliche und 18 Kurzpräsentationen geboten sowie zehn "Special Sessions" [DC2005-PAPERS]. Fünf Einführungsseminare zu Themen der Metadaten und maschinell verarbeitbarer Thesauri wurden abgehalten. Die Hauptreden der vier Konferenztage wurden von Thomas Baker (Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen), Ricardo Baeza (University of Chile), Johannes Keizer (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) und Eric Miller (World Wide Web Consortium) gehalten. Plenarvorträge wurden simultan ins Spanische übersetzt und mehrere Treffen wurden in französischer oder spanischer Sprache abgehalten. Die Dublin-Core-Konferenz ist auch das zentrale Ereignis des Jahres für die Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) als Organisation. Vor und nach der Konferenz tagten das DCMI Board of Trustees, ein Gremium aus Metadatenexperten und nationalen Vertretern ("Affiliates"); das "Usage Board", das den Standard inhaltlich verwaltet, und das "Advisory Board", das hauptsächlich aus Leitern von DCMI-Arbeitsgruppen besteht. Während der Konferenz haben sich vierzehn Arbeitsgruppen zu speziellen Fragen im Bereich Metadaten getroffen. 2. Von der Kernsemantik zum Modell "Zehn Jahre Dublin Core" war der Hintergrund für die Keynote-Präsehtation von Thomas Baker, DCMI Director of Specifications and Documentation. März 1995 fand in Dublin (Ohio) der Workshop statt, auf dem die Kernelemente erstmals entworfen wurden - Creator, Subject, Date, usw. - die der Initiative den Namen gegeben haben. Dieser "Dublin Core" wurde 1998 bei der Internet Engineering Task Force als Request for Comments (RFC 2413) publiziert, 2000 formal als Standard in Europa (CWA 13874/2000 bei CEN), 2001 in den USA (Z39.95 bei NISO) und 2003 international (ISO 15836/2003) anerkannt [DUBLINCORE]. Am Anfang wurde der Dublin Core als Datenformat konzipiert - d.h. als streng festgelegte Vorlage für digitale Karteikarten. Bereits früh wurden die Elemente jedoch als Vokabular aufgefasst, d.h. als Satz prinzipiell rekombinierbarer Elemente für Beschreibungen, die den Anforderungen spezifischer Anwendungsbereiche angepasst werden konnten - kurz, als Bausteine für Anwendungsprofile. Ausgehend von der vermeintlich simplen Aufgabe, Webseiten auf einfache Art zu beschreiben, hat sich ab 1997 in gegenseitiger Beeinflussung mit der sich entwickelnden Webtechnik von HTML bis hin zu XML und RDF ein allgemeines Modell für Metadaten herauskristallisiert.
Im März 2005 hat die DCMI mit der Verabschiedung des so genannten "Abstrakten Modells" einen wichtigen Meilenstein erreicht. Dieses DC-Modell ist die formale Grammatik der Metadatensprache, die sich im Laufe der Jahre entwickelt hat. Es hat eine gemeinsame Wurzel mit dem Modell des Semantic Web beim W3C und teilt dessen Grundstruktur, bleibt jedoch absichtlich einfacher als die voll entwickelten Ontologiesprachen des letzteren. Das abstrakte Modell dient als Maßstab für den systematischen Vergleich verschiedenartiger Implementierungstechniken in Bezug auf deren Ausdrucksfähigkeit. Ein hierarchisch aufgebautes XML-Schema kann beispielsweise Metainformationen differenzierter übertragen als ein HTML-Webdokument mit einem flachen Satz eingebetteter META-Tags. Dagegen kann RDF expliziter als ein XML-Schema die Semantik einer Beschreibung in einen größeren semantischen Zusammenhang verankern und somit die Rekombinierbarkeit der Daten erleichtern. In der Praxis müssen Systementwickler sich für die eine oder andere Implementierungstechnik entscheiden, dabei liefern die Metadaten nur eines von mehreren Kriterien. Das DC-Modell bietet eine Basis für den Vergleich der möglichen Lösungen in Hinblick auf die Unterstützung von Metadaten und dient somit als Vorbereitung für deren spätere Integration. Die Interoperabilität der Metadaten ist aber nicht nur eine Frage einer gemeinsamen Semantik mit einem gemeinsamen Modell. Wie auch bei menschlichen Sprachen wird die Interoperabilität umso vollkommener, je besser die Sprachgebräuche verstanden werden - d.h. die Katalogisierungsregeln, die den Metadaten zugrunde liegen. Die Metadatenregeln, die innerhalb einer Anwendungsgemeinschaft benutzt werden, sind Gegenstand eines so genannten Anwendungsprofils. Viele DCMI-Arbeitsgruppen sehen ihre Hauptaufgabe darin, ein Anwendungsprofil für ein bestimmtes Arbeitsgebiet zu erstellen (siehe Abschnitt 6, unten). Diesem Trend zufolge orientiert sich das DCMI Usage Board zunehmend auf die Überprüfung ganzer Anwendungsprofile auf Übereinstimmung mit dem DCMI-Modell."

7.6892605E-4 = product of:
  0.0069203344 = sum of:
    0.0069203344 = product of:
      0.013840669 = sum of:
        0.013840669 = weight(_text_:web in 1254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013840669 = score(doc=1254,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 1254, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1254)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Knowledge management in digital libraries is a universal problem. Keyword-based searching is applied everywhere no matter whether the resources are indexed databases or full-text Web pages. In keyword matching, the valuable content description and indexing of the metadata, such as the subject descriptors and the classification notations, are merely treated as common keywords to be matched with the user query. Without the support of vocabulary control tools, such as classification systems and thesauri, the intelligent labor of content analysis, description and indexing in metadata production are seriously wasted. New retrieval paradigms are needed to exploit the potential of the metadata resources. Could classification and thesauri, which contain the condensed intelligence of generations of librarians, be used in a digital library to organize the networked information, especially metadata, to facilitate their usability and change the digital library into a knowledge management environment? To examine that question, we designed and implemented a new paradigm that incorporates a classification system, a thesaurus and metadata. The classification and the thesaurus are merged into a concept network, and the metadata are distributed into the nodes of the concept network according to their subjects. The abstract concept node instantiated with the related metadata records becomes a knowledge node. A coherent and consistent knowledge network is thus formed. It is not only a framework for resource organization but also a structure for knowledge navigation, retrieval and learning. We have built an experimental system based on the Chinese Classification and Thesaurus, which is the most comprehensive and authoritative in China, and we have incorporated more than 5000 bibliographic records in the computing domain from the Peking University Library. The result is encouraging. In this article, we review the tools, the architecture and the implementation of our experimental system, which is called Vision.

7.6892605E-4 = product of:
  0.0069203344 = sum of:
    0.0069203344 = product of:
      0.013840669 = sum of:
        0.013840669 = weight(_text_:web in 1547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013840669 = score(doc=1547,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 1547, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1547)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Digitales Bibliotheksgut bildet neben dem Verbundsystem und Lokalsystemen schon seit einigen Jahren einen der Schwerpunkte des Bibliotheksservice-Zentrum Baden-Württemberg (BSZ). Dazu wurden in einer Reihe von Projekten unterschiedliche Gesichtspunkte dieser vergleichsweise neuen Medien berücksichtigt. Viele dieser Projekte sind mittlerweile abgeschlossen, einige in einen regelrechten Routinebetrieb übergegangen. Video- und Audiofiles, aber auch Image- und Textdateien stellen zunächst durch ihre technische Form spezielle Anforderungen an ihre Erzeugung, Aufbewahrung und Nutzung. Daran schließt sich die Entwicklung geeigneter Verfahren und Hilfsmittel zur Verzeichnung und Erschließung an. Spezielle Suchmaschinen und Austauschprotokolle ermöglichen ein adäquates Retrieval elektronischer Ressourcen und ihre Distribution. Ein eigenes Feld stellt der Einsatz von multimedialen Lehr- und Lernmaterialien im Hochschulunterricht dar. Die technischen Eigenschaften und Möglichkeiten führen darüber hinaus zu anderen inhaltlichen Strukturen als bei "konventioneller" Literatur und schließlich zu einer andersartigen rechtlichen Verortung dieser Bestände. Zu allen diesen Themen war das BSZ tätig, meist in Kooperationen mit Partnern wie z.B. den OPUS-Anwendern oder der DLmeta-Initative. Im Mittelpunkt dieses Engagements steht der Virtuelle Medienserver, der die Metadaten der dezentral vorgehaltenen Objekte enthält, diese über Hyperlinks erreichen kann und der mit der Verbunddatenbank synchronisiert ist. Die "digitale" Bibliotheksarbeit orientiert sich dabei an den Methoden und Prinzipien der "analogen" Bibliotheksarbeit, passt diese teils den neuen, digitalen Möglichkeiten an, insbesondere der Online-Zugänglichkeit, vermeidet aber Brüche in den Nachweisinstrumenten. Im Folgenden soll dies an vier zentralen Aspekten deutlich gemacht werden, die Teil jeder Bibliotheksarbeit sind und entsprechend in aktuellen Projekten der Digital Library im BSZ ihren Niederschlag finden: Recherche- und Zugangsmöglichkeiten oder "Portale", Inhalte und Medien oder "Content", Regelwerke und Formate oder "Metadaten", Sprachverwendung oder "Normvokabular und Klassifikationen". Illustriert werden diese Themen anhand aktueller Projekte, zunächst die Sprachverwendung anhand des BAM-Portals: Das BAM-Portal wird in einem DFG-Projekt in Kooperation des BSZ mit der Landesarchivdirektion Baden-Württemberg und dem Landesmuseum für Technik und Arbeit entwickelt. Es zielt darauf ab, in Bibliotheken, Archiven und Museen vorhandene digitale Bestände unter einer einheitlichen Oberfläche übers World Wide Web zugänglich zu machen. Eine Recherche im BAMPortal führt auf eine fachübergreifende Trefferliste, in der jeder Treffer über Internetlinks mit einer ausführlichen, herkunftsgerechten Beschreibung verknüpft ist. Von dort ist gegebenenfalls ein zugehöriges Digitalisat bzw. eine multimediale Veranschaulichung erreichbar. Da übliche Suchaspekte, wie der Autor für Literatur oder die Provenienz für das Archivalien im gemeinsamen Kontext nicht fachübergreifende Resultate ergeben, treten hier themenbezogene Recherchen in den Vordergrund. Daher widmen wir im BAM-Portal der thematischen Erschließung der verschiedenen Datenbestände die größte Aufmerksamkeit.

7.6892605E-4 = product of:
  0.0069203344 = sum of:
    0.0069203344 = product of:
      0.013840669 = sum of:
        0.013840669 = weight(_text_:web in 5732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013840669 = score(doc=5732,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 5732, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5732)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The speed with change takes place is startling and has left the information community with little time to consider how the development of electronic resources and the metadata schemas created to describe them effect how we view a work and its components. In terms of the attribution of authorship in the context of electronic works, this is a salient point. How does one determine authorship of a complex electronic resource, which is the culmination of the work of a myriad of entities? How does one determine the authorship when the content of the electronic resource may change at any moment without warning? What is the semantic content of the element that denotes authorship or responsibility for an electronic resource and how does the term used determine the element's meaning? The conceptual difficulty in the definition of the Creator element is deciphering what exactly the metadata schema should be describing. We also need to establish what purpose the element is intended to serve. In essence, we are at a crossroads. It is clear that once a work is digitized it exists in a significantly different medium, but how do we provide access to it? It is necessary to critically assess the accuracy of digital surrogates and to note that webmasters have a significant amount of intellectual responsibility invested in the sites they create. The solution to the problem in the Creator element may lie in moving from the concept of "authorship" and "origination" to a concept of intellectual responsibility. Perhaps the problematic nature of the Creator element allows us to move forward in our assessment and treatment of knowledge. One solution may be to standardize the definitions within various element sets. As the semantic web continues to grow and librarians strive to catalog electronic resources, the establishment of standard definitions for elements is becoming more relevant and important.

7.6892605E-4 = product of:
  0.0069203344 = sum of:
    0.0069203344 = product of:
      0.013840669 = sum of:
        0.013840669 = weight(_text_:web in 1199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013840669 = score(doc=1199,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 1199, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1199)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

On 18 November 2002, at a meeting organised by the CORES Project (Information Society Technologies Programme, European Union), several organisations regarded as maintenance authorities for metadata elements achieved consensus on a resolution to assign Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) to metadata elements as a useful first step towards the development of mapping infrastructures and interoperability services. The signatories of the CORES Resolution agreed to promote this consensus in their communities and beyond and to implement an action plan in the following six months. Six months having passed, the maintainers of GILS, ONIX, MARC 21, CERIF, DOI, IEEE/LOM, and Dublin Core report on their implementations of the resolution and highlight issues of relevance to establishing good-practice conventions for declaring, identifying, and maintaining metadata elements more generally. In June 2003, the resolution was also endorsed by the maintainers of UNIMARC. The "Resolution on Metadata Element Identifiers", or CORES Resolution, is an agreement among the maintenance organisations for several major metadata standards - GILS, ONIX, MARC 21, UNIMARC, CERIF, DOI®, IEEE/LOM, and Dublin Core - to identify their metadata elements using Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs). The Uniform Resource Identifier, defined in the IETF RFC 2396 as "a compact string of characters for identifying an abstract or physical resource", has been promoted for use as a universal form of identification by the World Wide Web Consortium. The CORES Resolution, formulated at a meeting organised by the European project CORES in November 2002, included a commitment to publicise the consensus statement to a wider audience of metadata standards initiatives and to implement key points of the agreement within the following six months - specifically, to define URI assignment mechanisms, assign URIs to elements, and formulate policies for the persistence of those URIs. This article marks the passage of six months by reporting on progress made in implementing this common action plan. After presenting the text of the CORES Resolution and its three "clarifications", the article summarises the position of each signatory organisation towards assigning URIs to its metadata elements, noting any practical or strategic problems that may have emerged. These progress reports were based on input from Thomas Baker, José Borbinha, Eliot Christian, Erik Duval, Keith Jeffery, Rebecca Guenther, and Norman Paskin. The article closes with a few general observations about these first steps towards the clarification of shared conventions for the identification of metadata elements and perhaps, one can hope, towards the ultimate goal of improving interoperability among a diversity of metadata communities.

7.6892605E-4 = product of:
  0.0069203344 = sum of:
    0.0069203344 = product of:
      0.013840669 = sum of:
        0.013840669 = weight(_text_:web in 1208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013840669 = score(doc=1208,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 1208, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1208)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

For those of us still struggling with basic concepts regarding metadata in this brave new world in which cataloging means much more than MARC, an article like this is welcome indeed. In this 30.000-foot overview of the metadata landscape, broad issues such as modularity, namespaces, extensibility, refinement, and multilingualism are discussed. In addition, "practicalities" like application profiles, syntax and semantics, metadata registries, and automated generation of metadata are explained. Although this piece is not exhaustive of high-level metadata issues, it is nonetheless a useful description of some of the most important issues surrounding metadata creation and use. The rapid changes in the means of information access occasioned by the emergence of the World Wide Web have spawned an upheaval in the means of describing and managing information resources. Metadata is a primary tool in this work, and an important link in the value chain of knowledge economies. Yet there is much confusion about how metadata should be integrated into information systems. How is it to be created or extended? Who will manage it? How can it be used and exchanged? Whence comes its authority? Can different metadata standards be used together in a given environment? These and related questions motivate this paper. The authors hope to make explicit the strong foundations of agreement shared by two prominent metadata Initiatives: the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) and the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Learning Object Metadata (LOM) Working Group. This agreement emerged from a joint metadata taskforce meeting in Ottawa in August, 2001. By elucidating shared principles and practicalities of metadata, we hope to raise the level of understanding among our respective (and shared) constituents, so that all stakeholders can move forward more decisively to address their respective problems. The ideas in this paper are divided into two categories. Principles are those concepts judged to be common to all domains of metadata and which might inform the design of any metadata schema or application. Practicalities are the rules of thumb, constraints, and infrastructure issues that emerge from bringing theory into practice in the form of useful and sustainable systems.

7.6892605E-4 = product of:
  0.0069203344 = sum of:
    0.0069203344 = product of:
      0.013840669 = sum of:
        0.013840669 = weight(_text_:web in 2320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013840669 = score(doc=2320,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2320, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2320)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to describe a new approach to a well-known problem for digital libraries, how to search across multiple unrelated libraries with a single query. Design/methodology/approach - The approach involves creating new Dewey Decimal Classification terms and numbers from existing Dublin Core records. In total, 263,550 records were harvested from three digital libraries. Weighted key terms were extracted from the title, description and subject fields of each record. Ranked DDC classes were automatically generated from these key terms by considering DDC hierarchies via a series of filtering and aggregation stages. A mean reciprocal ranking evaluation compared a sample of 49 generated classes against DDC classes created by a trained librarian for the same records. Findings - The best results combined weighted key terms from the title, description and subject fields. Performance declines with increased specificity of DDC level. The results compare favorably with similar studies. Research limitations/implications - The metadata harvest required manual intervention and the evaluation was resource intensive. Future research will look at evaluation methodologies that take account of issues of consistency and ecological validity. Practical implications - The method does not require training data and is easily scalable. The pipeline can be customized for individual use cases, for example, recall or precision enhancing. Social implications - The approach can provide centralized access to information from multiple domains currently provided by individual digital libraries. Originality/value - The approach addresses metadata normalization in the context of web resources. The automatic classification approach accounts for matches within hierarchies, aggregating lower level matches to broader parents and thus approximates the practices of a human cataloger.

7.6892605E-4 = product of:
  0.0069203344 = sum of:
    0.0069203344 = product of:
      0.013840669 = sum of:
        0.013840669 = weight(_text_:web in 5068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013840669 = score(doc=5068,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 5068, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5068)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This paper presents a new theory of metadata enriching and filtering. The theory emerged from a rigorous grounded theory data analysis of 57 in-depth interviews with metadata experts, library and information science researchers, librarians as well as academic library users (G. Alemu, A Theory of Digital Library Metadata: The Emergence of Enriching and Filtering, University of Portsmouth PhD thesis, Portsmouth, 2014). Partly due to the novelty of Web 2.0 approaches and mainly due to the absence of foundational theories to underpin socially constructed metadata approaches, this research adapted a social constructivist philosophical approach and a constructivist grounded theory method (K.?Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis, SAGE Publications, London, 2006). The theory espouses the importance of enriching information objects with descriptions pertaining to the about-ness of information objects. Such richness and diversity of descriptions, it is argued, could chiefly be achieved by involving users in the metadata creation process. The theory includes four overarching metadata principles - metadata enriching, linking, openness and filtering. The theory proposes a mixed metadata approach where metadata experts provide the requisite basic descriptive metadata, structure and interoperability (a priori metadata) while users continually enrich it with their own interpretations (post-hoc metadata). Enriched metadata is inter- and cross-linked (the principle of linking), made openly accessible (the principle of openness) and presented (the principle of filtering) according to user needs. It is argued that enriched, interlinked and open metadata effectively rises and scales to the challenges presented by the growing digital collections and changing user expectations. This metadata approach allows users to pro-actively engage in co-creating metadata, hence enhancing the findability, discoverability and subsequent usage of information resources. This paper concludes by indicating the current challenges and opportunities to implement the theory of metadata enriching and filtering.

7.6892605E-4 = product of:
  0.0069203344 = sum of:
    0.0069203344 = product of:
      0.013840669 = sum of:
        0.013840669 = weight(_text_:web in 5153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013840669 = score(doc=5153,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 5153, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5153)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This highly practical handbook teaches you how to unlock the value of your existing metadata through cleaning, reconciliation, enrichment and linking and how to streamline the process of new metadata creation. Libraries, archives and museums are facing up to the challenge of providing access to fast growing collections whilst managing cuts to budgets. Key to this is the creation, linking and publishing of good quality metadata as Linked Data that will allow their collections to be discovered, accessed and disseminated in a sustainable manner. This highly practical handbook teaches you how to unlock the value of your existing metadata through cleaning, reconciliation, enrichment and linking and how to streamline the process of new metadata creation. Metadata experts Seth van Hooland and Ruben Verborgh introduce the key concepts of metadata standards and Linked Data and how they can be practically applied to existing metadata, giving readers the tools and understanding to achieve maximum results with limited resources. Readers will learn how to critically assess and use (semi-)automated methods of managing metadata through hands-on exercises within the book and on the accompanying website. Each chapter is built around a case study from institutions around the world, demonstrating how freely available tools are being successfully used in different metadata contexts. This handbook delivers the necessary conceptual and practical understanding to empower practitioners to make the right decisions when making their organisations resources accessible on the Web. Key topics include, the value of metadata; metadata creation - architecture, data models and standards; metadata cleaning; metadata reconciliation; metadata enrichment through Linked Data and named-entity recognition; importing and exporting metadata; ensuring a sustainable publishing model. This will be an invaluable guide for metadata practitioners and researchers within all cultural heritage contexts, from library cataloguers and archivists to museum curatorial staff. It will also be of interest to students and academics within information science and digital humanities fields. IT managers with responsibility for information systems, as well as strategy heads and budget holders, at cultural heritage organisations, will find this a valuable decision-making aid.

7.6892605E-4 = product of:
  0.0069203344 = sum of:
    0.0069203344 = product of:
      0.013840669 = sum of:
        0.013840669 = weight(_text_:web in 117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013840669 = score(doc=117,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 117, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=117)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Information management in corporate environments is a growing problem as companies' information assets grow and their need to use them in their operations. Several management models have been practiced with application on the most diverse fronts, practices that integrate the so-called Enterprise Content Management. This study proposes a conceptual model of semantic corporate information ecosystem, based on the Universal Document Model proposed by Dagobert Soergel. It focuses on unstructured information objects, especially multimedia, increasingly used in corporate environments, adding semantics and expanding their recovery potential in the composition and reuse of dynamic documents on demand. The proposed model considers stable elements in the organizational environment, such as actors, processes, business metadata and information objects, as well as some basic infrastructures of the corporate information environment. The main objective is to establish a conceptual model that adds semantic intelligence to information assets, leveraging pre-existing infrastructure in organizations, integrating and relating objects to other objects, actors and business processes. The approach methodology considered the state of the art of Information Organization, Representation and Retrieval, Organizational Content Management and Semantic Web technologies, in the scientific literature, as bases for the establishment of an integrative conceptual model. Therefore, the research will be qualitative and exploratory. The predicted steps of the model are: Environment, Data Type and Source Definition, Data Distillation, Metadata Enrichment, and Storage. As a result, in theoretical terms the extended model allows to process heterogeneous and unstructured data according to the established cut-outs and through the processes listed above, allowing value creation in the composition of dynamic information objects, with semantic aggregations to metadata.

7.6892605E-4 = product of:
  0.0069203344 = sum of:
    0.0069203344 = product of:
      0.013840669 = sum of:
        0.013840669 = weight(_text_:web in 753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013840669 = score(doc=753,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 753, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=753)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Content

Inhalt: Editorial - Michael Franke-Maier, Anna Kasprzik, Andreas Ledl und Hans Schürmann Qualität in der Inhaltserschließung - Ein Überblick aus 50 Jahren (1970-2020) - Andreas Ledl Fit for Purpose - Standardisierung von inhaltserschließenden Informationen durch Richtlinien für Metadaten - Joachim Laczny Neue Wege und Qualitäten - Die Inhaltserschließungspolitik der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek - Ulrike Junger und Frank Scholze Wissensbasen für die automatische Erschließung und ihre Qualität am Beispiel von Wikidata - Lydia Pintscher, Peter Bourgonje, Julián Moreno Schneider, Malte Ostendorff und Georg Rehm Qualitätssicherung in der GND - Esther Scheven Qualitätskriterien und Qualitätssicherung in der inhaltlichen Erschließung - Thesenpapier des Expertenteams RDA-Anwendungsprofil für die verbale Inhaltserschließung (ET RAVI) Coli-conc - Eine Infrastruktur zur Nutzung und Erstellung von Konkordanzen - Uma Balakrishnan, Stefan Peters und Jakob Voß Methoden und Metriken zur Messung von OCR-Qualität für die Kuratierung von Daten und Metadaten - Clemens Neudecker, Karolina Zaczynska, Konstantin Baierer, Georg Rehm, Mike Gerber und Julián Moreno Schneider Datenqualität als Grundlage qualitativer Inhaltserschließung - Jakob Voß Bemerkungen zu der Qualitätsbewertung von MARC-21-Datensätzen - Rudolf Ungváry und Péter Király Named Entity Linking mit Wikidata und GND - Das Potenzial handkuratierter und strukturierter Datenquellen für die semantische Anreicherung von Volltexten - Sina Menzel, Hannes Schnaitter, Josefine Zinck, Vivien Petras, Clemens Neudecker, Kai Labusch, Elena Leitner und Georg Rehm Ein Protokoll für den Datenabgleich im Web am Beispiel von OpenRefine und der Gemeinsamen Normdatei (GND) - Fabian Steeg und Adrian Pohl Verbale Erschließung in Katalogen und Discovery-Systemen - Überlegungen zur Qualität - Heidrun Wiesenmüller Inhaltserschließung für Discovery-Systeme gestalten - Jan Frederik Maas Evaluierung von Verschlagwortung im Kontext des Information Retrievals - Christian Wartena und Koraljka Golub Die Qualität der Fremddatenanreicherung FRED - Cyrus Beck Quantität als Qualität - Was die Verbünde zur Verbesserung der Inhaltserschließung beitragen können - Rita Albrecht, Barbara Block, Mathias Kratzer und Peter Thiessen Hybride Künstliche Intelligenz in der automatisierten Inhaltserschließung - Harald Sack

6.728103E-4 = product of:
  0.0060552927 = sum of:
    0.0060552927 = product of:
      0.012110585 = sum of:
        0.012110585 = weight(_text_:web in 1257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012110585 = score(doc=1257,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.12619963 = fieldWeight in 1257, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1257)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Over the past three years, the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative has achieved a broad international consensus on the semantics of a simple element set for describing electronic resources. Since the first workshop in March 1995, which was reported in the very first issue of D-Lib Magazine, Dublin Core has been the topic of perhaps a dozen articles here. Originally intended to be simple and intuitive enough for authors to tag Web pages without special training, Dublin Core is being adapted now for more specialized uses, from government information and legal deposit to museum informatics and electronic commerce. To meet such specialized requirements, Dublin Core can be customized with additional elements or qualifiers. However, these refinements can compromise interoperability across applications. There are tradeoffs between using specific terms that precisely meet local needs versus general terms that are understood more widely. We can better understand this inevitable tension between simplicity and complexity if we recognize that metadata is a form of human language. With Dublin Core, as with a natural language, people are inclined to stretch definitions, make general terms more specific, specific terms more general, misunderstand intended meanings, and coin new terms. One goal of this paper, therefore, will be to examine the experience of some related ways to seek semantic interoperability through simplicity: planned languages, interlingua constructs, and pidgins. The problem of semantic interoperability is compounded when we consider Dublin Core in translation. All of the workshops, documents, mailing lists, user guides, and working group outputs of the Dublin Core Initiative have been in English. But in many countries and for many applications, people need a metadata standard in their own language. In principle, the broad elements of Dublin Core can be defined equally well in Bulgarian or Hindi. Since Dublin Core is a controlled standard, however, any parallel definitions need to be kept in sync as the standard evolves. Another goal of the paper, then, will be to define the conceptual and organizational problem of maintaining a metadata standard in multiple languages. In addition to a name and definition, which are meant for human consumption, each Dublin Core element has a label, or indexing token, meant for harvesting by search engines. For practical reasons, these machine-readable tokens are English-looking strings such as Creator and Subject (just as HTML tags are called HEAD, BODY, or TITLE). These tokens, which are shared by Dublin Cores in every language, ensure that metadata fields created in any particular language are indexed together across repositories. As symbols of underlying universal semantics, these tokens form the basis of semantic interoperability among the multiple Dublin Cores. As long as we limit ourselves to sharing these indexing tokens among exact translations of a simple set of fifteen broad elements, the definitions of which fit easily onto two pages, the problem of Dublin Core in multiple languages is straightforward. But nothing having to do with human language is ever so simple. Just as speakers of various languages must learn the language of Dublin Core in their own tongues, we must find the right words to talk about a metadata language that is expressable in many discipline-specific jargons and natural languages and that inevitably will evolve and change over time.

4.805788E-4 = product of:
  0.004325209 = sum of:
    0.004325209 = product of:
      0.008650418 = sum of:
        0.008650418 = weight(_text_:web in 133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008650418 = score(doc=133,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.09014259 = fieldWeight in 133, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=133)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Footnote

Part II consists of five papers on specific metadata standards and applications. Anita Coleman presents an element-by-element description of how to create Dublin Core metadata for Web resources to be included in a library catalog, using principles inspired by cataloging practice, in her paper "From Cataloging to Metadata: Dublin Core Records for the Library Catalog." The next three papers provide especially excellent introductory overviews of three diverse types of metadata-related standards: "Metadata Standards for Archival Control: An Introduction to EAD and EAC" by Alexander C. Thurman, "Introduction to XML" by Patrick Yott, and "METS: the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard" by Linda Cantara. Finally, Michael Chopey offers a superb and most useful overview of "Planning and Implementing a Metadata-Driven Digital Repository." Although all of the articles in this book contain interesting, often illuminating, and potentially useful information, not all serve equally well as introductory material for working catalogers not already familiar with metadata. It would be difficult to consider this volume, taken as a whole, as truly a "primer" for catalog librarians, as the subtitle implies. The content of the articles is too much a mix of introductory essays and original research, some of it at a relatively more advanced level. The collection does not approach the topic in the kind of coherent, systematic, or comprehensive way that would be necessary for a true "primer" or introductory textbook. While several of the papers would be quite appropriate for a primer, such a text would need to include, among other things, coverage of other metadata schemes and protocols such as TEI, VRA, and OAI, which are missing here. That having been said, however, Dr. Smiraglia's excellent introduction to the volume itself serves as a kind of concise, well-written "mini-primer" for catalogers new to metadata. It succinctly covers definitions of metadata, basic concepts, content designation and markup languages, metadata for resource description, including short overviews of TEI, DC, EAD, and AACR2/MARC21, and introduces the papers included in the book. In the conclusion to this essay, Dr. Smiraglia says about the book: "In the end the contents go beyond the definition of primer as `introductory textbook.' But the authors have collectively compiled a thought-provoking volume about the uses of metadata" (p. 15). This is a fair assessment of the work taken as a whole. In this reviewer's opinion, there is to date no single introductory textbook on metadata that is fully satisfactory for both working catalogers and for library and information science (LIS) students who may or may not have had exposure to cataloging. But there are a handful of excellent books that serve different aspects of that function. These include the following recent publications: