Search (32 results, page 1 of 2)

0.009925528 = product of:
  0.04466488 = sum of:
    0.020761002 = product of:
      0.041522004 = sum of:
        0.041522004 = weight(_text_:web in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041522004 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.023903877 = product of:
      0.047807753 = sum of:
        0.047807753 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047807753 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, 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=6048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

Theme

Semantic Web

0.004931886 = product of:
  0.022193488 = sum of:
    0.012233539 = product of:
      0.024467077 = sum of:
        0.024467077 = weight(_text_:web in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024467077 = score(doc=4550,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 4550, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4550)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009959949 = product of:
      0.019919898 = sum of:
        0.019919898 = weight(_text_:22 in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019919898 = score(doc=4550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4550, 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=4550)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

In 2016, the University of Waterloo began offering a mediated copyright review and deposit service to support the growth of our institutional repository UWSpace. This resulted in the need to batch import large lists of published works into the institutional repository quickly and accurately. A range of methods have been proposed for harvesting publications metadata en masse, but many technological solutions can easily become detached from a workflow that is both reproducible for support staff and applicable to a range of situations. Many repositories offer the capacity for batch upload via CSV, so our method provides a template Python script that leverages the Habanero library for populating CSV files with existing metadata retrieved from the CrossRef API. In our case, we have combined this with useful metadata contained in a TSV file downloaded from Web of Science in order to enrich our metadata as well. The appeal of this 'low-maintenance' method is that it provides more robust options for gathering metadata semi-automatically, and only requires the user's ability to access Web of Science and the Python program, while still remaining flexible enough for local customizations.

Date

10.11.2018 16:27:22

0.0033085097 = product of:
  0.014888294 = sum of:
    0.0069203344 = product of:
      0.013840669 = sum of:
        0.013840669 = weight(_text_:web in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013840669 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 1236, 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=1236)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.007967959 = product of:
      0.015935918 = sum of:
        0.015935918 = weight(_text_:22 in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015935918 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1236, 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=1236)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Dublin Core is often presented as a modern form of catalog card -- a set of elements (and now qualifiers) that describe resources in a complete package. Sometimes it is proposed as an exchange format for sharing records among multiple collections. The founding principle that "every element is optional and repeatable" reinforces the notion that a Dublin Core description is to be taken as a whole. This paper, in contrast, is based on a much different premise: Dublin Core is a language. More precisely, it is a small language for making a particular class of statements about resources. Like natural languages, it has a vocabulary of word-like terms, the two classes of which -- elements and qualifiers -- function within statements like nouns and adjectives; and it has a syntax for arranging elements and qualifiers into statements according to a simple pattern. Whenever tourists order a meal or ask directions in an unfamiliar language, considerate native speakers will spontaneously limit themselves to basic words and simple sentence patterns along the lines of "I am so-and-so" or "This is such-and-such". Linguists call this pidginization. In such situations, a small phrase book or translated menu can be most helpful. By analogy, today's Web has been called an Internet Commons where users and information providers from a wide range of scientific, commercial, and social domains present their information in a variety of incompatible data models and description languages. In this context, Dublin Core presents itself as a metadata pidgin for digital tourists who must find their way in this linguistically diverse landscape. Its vocabulary is small enough to learn quickly, and its basic pattern is easily grasped. It is well-suited to serve as an auxiliary language for digital libraries. This grammar starts by defining terms. It then follows a 200-year-old tradition of English grammar teaching by focusing on the structure of single statements. It concludes by looking at the growing dictionary of Dublin Core vocabulary terms -- its registry, and at how statements can be used to build the metadata equivalent of paragraphs and compositions -- the application profile.

Date

26.12.2011 14:01:22

0.003262277 = product of:
  0.029360492 = sum of:
    0.029360492 = product of:
      0.058720984 = sum of:
        0.058720984 = weight(_text_:web in 6798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058720984 = score(doc=6798,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.6119082 = fieldWeight in 6798, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6798)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

0.002306778 = product of:
  0.020761002 = sum of:
    0.020761002 = product of:
      0.041522004 = sum of:
        0.041522004 = weight(_text_:web in 6803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041522004 = score(doc=6803,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 6803, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6803)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

0.0021748515 = product of:
  0.019573662 = sum of:
    0.019573662 = product of:
      0.039147325 = sum of:
        0.039147325 = weight(_text_:web in 4840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039147325 = score(doc=4840,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 4840, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

In this talk we present a retrieval model based on social ontologies. More specifically, we utilize the Wikipedia category system in order to perform semantic searches. That is, textual input is used to build queries by means of which documents are retrieved which do not necessarily contain any query term but are semantically related to the input text by virtue of their content. We present a desktop which utilizes this search facility in a web-based environment - the so called eHumanities Desktop.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0021748515 = product of:
  0.019573662 = sum of:
    0.019573662 = product of:
      0.039147325 = sum of:
        0.039147325 = weight(_text_:web in 1075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039147325 = score(doc=1075,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 1075, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1075)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Content

Tutorial topics and outline 1. Tutorial Background Overview The Semantic Web, Linked Data, and the Resource Description Framework 2. Ontology Basics and RDFS Tutorial Semantic modeling, domain ontologies, and RDF Vocabulary Description Language (RDFS) concepts and terminology Examples: domain ontologies, models, and schemas Exercises 3. OWL Overview Tutorial Web Ontology Language (OWL): selected concepts and terminology Exercises

0.0021492138 = product of:
  0.019342924 = sum of:
    0.019342924 = product of:
      0.038685847 = sum of:
        0.038685847 = weight(_text_:web in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038685847 = score(doc=3895,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 3895, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Building up new collections for digital libraries is a demanding task. Available data sets have to be extracted which is usually done with the help of software developers as it involves custom data handlers or conversion scripts. In cases where the desired data is only available on the data provider's website custom web scrapers are needed. This may be the case for small to medium-size publishers, research institutes or funding agencies. As data curation is a typical task that is done by people with a library and information science background, these people are usually proficient with XML technologies but are not full-stack programmers. Therefore we would like to present a web scraping tool that does not demand the digital library curators to program custom web scrapers from scratch. We present the open-source tool OXPath, an extension of XPath, that allows the user to define data to be extracted from websites in a declarative way. By taking one of our own use cases as an example, we guide you in more detail through the process of creating an OXPath wrapper for metadata harvesting. We also point out some practical things to consider when creating a web scraper (with OXPath). On top of that, we also present a syntax highlighting plugin for the popular text editor Atom that we developed to further support OXPath users and to simplify the authoring process.

0.0020184307 = product of:
  0.018165877 = sum of:
    0.018165877 = product of:
      0.036331754 = sum of:
        0.036331754 = weight(_text_:web in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036331754 = score(doc=1210,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.37859887 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The Semantic Web activity is a W3C project whose goal is to enable a 'cooperative' Web where machines and humans can exchange electronic content that has clear-cut, unambiguous meaning. This vision is based on the automated sharing of metadata terms across Web applications. The declaration of schemas in metadata registries advance this vision by providing a common approach for the discovery, understanding, and exchange of semantics. However, many of the issues regarding registries are not clear, and ideas vary regarding their scope and purpose. Additionally, registry issues are often difficult to describe and comprehend without a working example. This article will explore the role of metadata registries and will describe three prototypes, written by the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. The article will outline how the prototypes are being used to demonstrate and evaluate application scope, functional requirements, and technology solutions for metadata registries. Metadata schema registries are, in effect, databases of schemas that can trace an historical line back to shared data dictionaries and the registration process encouraged by the ISO/IEC 11179 community. New impetus for the development of registries has come with the development activities surrounding creation of the Semantic Web. The motivation for establishing registries arises from domain and standardization communities, and from the knowledge management community. Examples of current registry activity include:
* Agencies maintaining directories of data elements in a domain area in accordance with ISO/IEC 11179 (This standard specifies good practice for data element definition as well as the registration process. Example implementations are the National Health Information Knowledgebase hosted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the Environmental Data Registry hosted by the US Environmental Protection Agency.); * The xml.org directory of the Extended Markup Language (XML) document specifications facilitating re-use of Document Type Definition (DTD), hosted by the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS); * The MetaForm database of Dublin Core usage and mappings maintained at the State and University Library in Goettingen; * The Semantic Web Agreement Group Dictionary, a database of terms for the Semantic Web that can be referred to by humans and software agents; * LEXML, a multi-lingual and multi-jurisdictional RDF Dictionary for the legal world; * The SCHEMAS registry maintained by the European Commission funded SCHEMAS project, which indexes several metadata element sets as well as a large number of activity reports describing metadata related activities and initiatives. Metadata registries essentially provide an index of terms. Given the distributed nature of the Web, there are a number of ways this can be accomplished. For example, the registry could link to terms and definitions in schemas published by implementers and stored locally by the schema maintainer. Alternatively, the registry might harvest various metadata schemas from their maintainers. Registries provide 'added value' to users by indexing schemas relevant to a particular 'domain' or 'community of use' and by simplifying the navigation of terms by enabling multiple schemas to be accessed from one view. An important benefit of this approach is an increase in the reuse of existing terms, rather than users having to reinvent them. Merging schemas to one view leads to harmonization between applications and helps avoid duplication of effort. Additionally, the establishment of registries to index terms actively being used in local implementations facilitates the metadata standards activity by providing implementation experience transferable to the standards-making process.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0019977288 = product of:
  0.017979559 = sum of:
    0.017979559 = product of:
      0.035959117 = sum of:
        0.035959117 = weight(_text_:web in 4437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035959117 = score(doc=4437,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 4437, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4437)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This site provides a collection of schemas, i.e., html tags, that webmasters can use to markup their pages in ways recognized by major search providers. Search engines including Bing, Google and Yahoo! rely on this markup to improve the display of search results, making it easier for people to find the right web pages. Many sites are generated from structured data, which is often stored in databases. When this data is formatted into HTML, it becomes very difficult to recover the original structured data. Many applications, especially search engines, can benefit greatly from direct access to this structured data. On-page markup enables search engines to understand the information on web pages and provide richer search results in order to make it easier for users to find relevant information on the web. Markup can also enable new tools and applications that make use of the structure. A shared markup vocabulary makes easier for webmasters to decide on a markup schema and get the maximum benefit for their efforts. So, in the spirit of sitemaps.org, Bing, Google and Yahoo! have come together to provide a shared collection of schemas that webmasters can use.

0.0019223152 = product of:
  0.017300837 = sum of:
    0.017300837 = product of:
      0.034601673 = sum of:
        0.034601673 = weight(_text_:web in 1281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034601673 = score(doc=1281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 1281, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

0.001902995 = product of:
  0.017126955 = sum of:
    0.017126955 = product of:
      0.03425391 = sum of:
        0.03425391 = weight(_text_:web in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03425391 = score(doc=5896,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This paper proposes the use of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) as a language for modelling ontologies for Web resources and the knowledge contained within them. To provide a mechanism for serialising and processing object diagrams representing knowledge, a pair of XSI-T stylesheets have been developed to map from XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) encodings of class diagrams to corresponding RDF schemas and to Java classes representing the concepts in the ontologies. The Java code includes methods for marshalling and unmarshalling object-oriented information between in-memory data structures and RDF serialisations of that information. This provides a convenient mechanism for Java applications to share knowledge on the Web

0.001902995 = product of:
  0.017126955 = sum of:
    0.017126955 = product of:
      0.03425391 = sum of:
        0.03425391 = weight(_text_:web in 3229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03425391 = score(doc=3229,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 3229, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Das Singapore Framework für Dublin-Core-Anwendungsprofile nennt die Rahmenbedingungen um Metadatenanwendungen möglichst interoperabel zu gestalten und so zu dokumentieren, dass sie nachnutzbar sind. Es definiert die Komponenten, die erforderlich und hilfreich sind, um ein Anwendungsprofil zu dokumentieren und es beschreibt, wie sich diese dokumentarischen Standards gegenüber Standard-Domain-Modellen und den Semantic-Web-Standards verhalten. Das Singapore Framework ist die Grundlage für die Beurteilung von Anwendungsprofilen in Hinblick auf Vollständigkeit der Dokumentation und auf Übereinstimmung mit den Prinzipien der Web-Architektur. Dieses Dokument bietet eine kurze Übersicht über das Singapore Framework. Weitere Dokumente, die als Anleitung für die Erstellung der erforderlichen Dokumentation dienen, sind in Planung.

0.0017706576 = product of:
  0.015935918 = sum of:
    0.015935918 = product of:
      0.031871837 = sum of:
        0.031871837 = weight(_text_:22 in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031871837 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

10. 9.2004 10:22:40

0.0017193711 = product of:
  0.015474339 = sum of:
    0.015474339 = product of:
      0.030948678 = sum of:
        0.030948678 = weight(_text_:web in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030948678 = score(doc=3965,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.32250395 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This paper describes recent initiatives to make standard library metadata models and structures available to the Semantic Web, including IFLA standards such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), and International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) along with the infrastructure that supports them. The FRBR Review Group is currently developing representations of FRAD and the entityrelationship model of FRBR in resource description framework (RDF) applications, using a combination of RDF, RDF Schema (RDFS), Simple Knowledge Organisation System (SKOS) and Web Ontology Language (OWL), cross-relating both models where appropriate. The ISBD/XML Task Group is investigating the representation of ISBD in RDF. The IFLA Namespaces project is developing an administrative and technical infrastructure to support such initiatives and encourage uptake of standards by other agencies. The paper describes similar initiatives with related external standards such as RDA - resource description and access, REICAT (the new Italian cataloguing rules) and CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM). The DCMI RDA Task Group is working with the Joint Steering Committee for RDA to develop Semantic Web representations of RDA structural elements, which are aligned with FRBR and FRAD, and controlled metadata content vocabularies. REICAT is also based on FRBR, and an object-oriented version of FRBR has been integrated with CRM, which itself has an RDF representation. CRM was initially based on the metadata needs of the museum community, and is now seeking extension to the archives community with the eventual aim of developing a model common to the main cultural information domains of archives, libraries and museums. The Vocabulary Mapping Framework (VMF) project has developed a Semantic Web tool to automatically generate mappings between metadata models from the information communities, including publishers. The tool is based on several standards, including CRM, FRAD, FRBR, MARC21 and RDA.

0.0017193711 = product of:
  0.015474339 = sum of:
    0.015474339 = product of:
      0.030948678 = sum of:
        0.030948678 = weight(_text_:web in 4439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030948678 = score(doc=4439,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.32250395 = fieldWeight in 4439, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4439)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Mit Schema.org und dem semantischen Web sollen Suchmaschinen verstehen lernen

Content

"Wörter haben oft mehrere Bedeutungen. Einige kennen den "Kanal" als künstliche Wasserstraße, andere vom Fernsehen. Die Waage kann zum Erfassen des Gewichts nützlich sein oder zur Orientierung auf der Horoskopseite. Casablanca ist eine Stadt und ein Film zugleich. Wo Menschen mit der Zeit Bedeutungen unterscheiden und verarbeiten lernen, können dies Suchmaschinen von selbst nicht. Stets listen sie dumpf hintereinander weg alles auf, was sie zu einem Thema finden. Damit das nicht so bleibt, haben sich nun Google, Yahoo und die zu Microsoft gehörende Suchmaschine Bing zusammengetan, um der Suche im Netz mehr Verständnis zu verpassen. Man spricht dabei auch von einer "semantischen Suche". Das Ergebnis heißt Schema.org. Wer die Webseite einmal besucht, sich ein wenig in die Unterstrukturen hereinklickt und weder Vorkenntnisse im Programmieren noch im Bereich des semantischen Webs hat, wird sich überfordert und gelangweilt wieder abwenden. Doch was hier entstehen könnte, hat das Zeug dazu, Teile des Netzes und speziell die Funktionen von Suchmaschinen mittel- oder langfristig zu verändern. "Große Player sind dabei, sich auf Standards zu einigen", sagt Daniel Bahls, Spezialist für Semantische Technologien beim ZBW Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft in Hamburg. "Die semantischen Technologien stehen schon seit Jahren im Raum und wurden bisher nur im kleineren Kontext verwendet." Denn Schema.org lädt Entwickler, Forscher, die Semantic-Web-Community und am Ende auch alle Betreiber von Websites dazu ein, an der Umgestaltung der Suche im Netz mitzuwirken. Inhalte von Websites sollen mit einem speziellen, aber einheitlichen Vokabular für die Crawler - die Analyseprogramme der Suchmaschinen - gekennzeichnet und aufbereitet werden.
Indem Schlagworte, sogenannte Tags, in den für Normal-User nicht sichtbaren Teil des Codes von Websites eingebettet werden, sind Suchmachinen nicht mehr so sehr auf die Analyse der natürlichen Sprache angewiesen, um Texte inhaltlich zu erfassen. Im Blog ZBW Mediatalk wird dies als "Semantic Web light" bezeichnet - ein semantisches Web auf niedrigster Ebene. Aber selbst das werde "schon viel bewirken", meint Bahls. "Das semantische Web wird sich über die nächsten Jahrzehnte evolutionär weiterentwickeln." Einen "Abschluss" werde es nie geben, "da eine einheitliche Formalisierung von Begrifflichkeiten auf feiner Stufe kaum möglich ist". Die Ergebnisse aus Schema.org würden "zeitnah" in die Suchmaschine integriert, "denn einen Zeitplan" gebe es nicht, so Stefan Keuchel, Pressesprecher von Google Deutschland. Bis das so weit ist, hilft der Verweis von Daniel Bahns auf die bereits existierende semantische Suchmaschine Sig.ma. Geschwindigkeit und Menge der Ergebnisse nach einer Suchanfrage spielen hier keine Rolle. Sig.ma sammelt seine Informationen allein im Bereich des semantischen Webs und listet nach einer Anfrage alles Bekannte strukturiert auf.

0.0015378521 = product of:
  0.013840669 = sum of:
    0.013840669 = product of:
      0.027681338 = sum of:
        0.027681338 = weight(_text_:web in 4183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027681338 = score(doc=4183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 4183, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4183)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

A status of cataloging in Thailand shows a movement toward the use of information technology. The international standards for cataloging are being used and modified to effectively organize the information resources. An expanded scope of resources needed cataloging now covers cataloging the Web resources. The paper mentions Thailand's participation in the international working group on the use of metadata for libraries

0.0013592821 = product of:
  0.012233539 = sum of:
    0.012233539 = product of:
      0.024467077 = sum of:
        0.024467077 = weight(_text_:web in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024467077 = score(doc=1216,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1216, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1216)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Reality is messy. Individuals perceive or define objects differently. Objects may change over time, morphing into new versions of their former selves or into things altogether different. A book can give rise to a translation, derivation, or edition, and these resulting objects are related in complex ways to each other and to the people and contexts in which they were created or transformed. Providing a normalized view of such a messy reality is a precondition for managing information. From the first library catalogs, through Melvil Dewey's Decimal Classification system in the nineteenth century, to today's MARC encoding of AACR2 cataloging rules, libraries have epitomized the process of what David Levy calls "order making", whereby catalogers impose a veneer of regularity on the natural disorder of the artifacts they encounter. The pre-digital library within which the Catalog and its standards evolved was relatively self-contained and controlled. Creating and maintaining catalog records was, and still is, the task of professionals. Today's Web, in contrast, has brought together a diversity of information management communities, with a variety of order-making standards, into what Stuart Weibel has called the Internet Commons. The sheer scale of this context has motivated a search for new ways to describe and index information. Second-generation search engines such as Google can yield astonishingly good search results, while tools such as ResearchIndex for automatic citation indexing and techniques for inferring "Web communities" from constellations of hyperlinks promise even better methods for focusing queries on information from authoritative sources. Such "automated digital libraries," according to Bill Arms, promise to radically reduce the cost of managing information. Alongside the development of such automated methods, there is increasing interest in metadata as a means of imposing pre-defined order on Web content. While the size and changeability of the Web makes professional cataloging impractical, a minimal amount of information ordering, such as that represented by the Dublin Core (DC), may vastly improve the quality of an automatic index at low cost; indeed, recent work suggests that some types of simple description may be generated with little or no human intervention.
Metadata is not monolithic. Instead, it is helpful to think of metadata as multiple views that can be projected from a single information object. Such views can form the basis of customized information services, such as search engines. Multiple views -- different types of metadata associated with a Web resource -- can facilitate a "drill-down" search paradigm, whereby people start their searches at a high level and later narrow their focus using domain-specific search categories. In Figure 1, for example, Mona Lisa may be viewed from the perspective of non-specialized searchers, with categories that are valid across domains (who painted it and when?); in the context of a museum (when and how was it acquired?); in the geo-spatial context of a walking tour using mobile devices (where is it in the gallery?); and in a legal framework (who owns the rights to its reproduction?). Multiple descriptive views imply a modular approach to metadata. Modularity is the basis of metadata architectures such as the Resource Description Framework (RDF), which permit different communities of expertise to associate and maintain multiple metadata packages for Web resources. As noted elsewhere, static association of multiple metadata packages with resources is but one way of achieving modularity. Another method is to computationally derive order-making views customized to the current needs of a client. This paper examines the evolution and scope of the Dublin Core from this perspective of metadata modularization. Dublin Core began in 1995 with a specific goal and scope -- as an easy-to-create and maintain descriptive format to facilitate cross-domain resource discovery on the Web. Over the years, this goal of "simple metadata for coarse-granularity discovery" came to mix with another goal -- that of community and domain-specific resource description and its attendant complexity. A notion of "qualified Dublin Core" evolved whereby the model for simple resource discovery -- a set of simple metadata elements in a flat, document-centric model -- would form the basis of more complex descriptions by treating the values of its elements as entities with properties ("component elements") in their own right.
At the time of writing, the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) has clarified its commitment to the simple approach. The qualification principles announced in early 2000 support the use of DC elements as the basis for simple statements about resources, rather than as the foundation for more descriptive clauses. This paper takes a critical look at some of the issues that led up to this renewed commitment to simplicity. We argue that: * There remains a compelling need for simple, "pidgin" metadata. From a technical and economic perspective, document-centric metadata, where simple string values are associated with a finite set of properties, is most appropriate for generic, cross-domain discovery queries in the Internet Commons. Such metadata is not necessarily fixed in physical records, but may be projected algorithmically from more complex metadata or from content itself. * The Dublin Core, while far from perfect from an engineering perspective, is an acceptable standard for such simple metadata. Agreements in the global information space are as much social as technical, and the process by which the Dublin Core has been developed, involving a broad cross-section of international participants, is a model for such "socially developed" standards. * Efforts to introduce complexity into Dublin Core are misguided. Complex descriptions may be necessary for some Web resources and for some purposes, such as administration, preservation, and reference linking. However, complex descriptions require more expressive data models that differentiate between agents, documents, contexts, events, and the like. An attempt to intermix simplicity and complexity, and the data models most appropriate for them, defeats the equally noble goals of cross-domain description and extensive resource description. * The principle of modularity suggests that metadata formats tailored for simplicity be used alongside others tailored for complexity.

0.0013592821 = product of:
  0.012233539 = sum of:
    0.012233539 = product of:
      0.024467077 = sum of:
        0.024467077 = weight(_text_:web in 3337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024467077 = score(doc=3337,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 3337, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Das Semantic Web ist schon seit über 10 Jahren viel beachtet und hat mit der Verfügbarkeit von Resource Description Framework (RDF) und den entsprechenden Ontologien einen großen Sprung in die Praxis gemacht. Vertreter kleiner Bibliotheken und Bibliothekare mit geringer Technik-Affinität stehen aber im Alltag vor großen Hürden, z.B. bei der Frage, wie man diese Technik konkret in den eigenen Webauftritt einbinden kann: man kommt sich vor wie Don Quijote, der versucht die Windmühlen zu bezwingen. RDF mit seinen Ontologien ist fast unverständlich komplex für Nicht-Informatiker und somit für den praktischen Einsatz auf Bibliotheksseiten in der Breite nicht direkt zu gebrauchen. Mit Schema.org wurde ursprünglich von den drei größten Suchmaschinen der Welt Google, Bing und Yahoo eine einfach und effektive semantische Beschreibung von Entitäten entwickelt. Aktuell wird Schema.org durch Google, Microsoft, Yahoo und Yandex weiter gesponsert und von vielen weiteren Suchmaschinen verstanden. Vor diesem Hintergrund hat die Bibliothek der Medizinischen Fakultät Mannheim auf ihrer Homepage (http://www.umm.uni-heidelberg.de/bibl/) verschiedene maschinenlesbare semantische Metadaten eingebettet. Sehr interessant und zukunftsweisend ist die neueste Entwicklung von Schema.org, bei der man eine 'Library' (https://schema.org/Library) mit Öffnungszeiten und vielem mehr modellieren kann. Ferner haben wir noch semantische Metadaten im Open Graph- und Dublin Core-Format eingebettet, um alte Standards und Facebook-konforme Informationen maschinenlesbar zur Verfügung zu stellen.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0013592821 = product of:
  0.012233539 = sum of:
    0.012233539 = product of:
      0.024467077 = sum of:
        0.024467077 = weight(_text_:web in 3372) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024467077 = score(doc=3372,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 3372, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3372)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Europeana provides access to more than 54 million cultural heritage objects through its portal Europeana Collections. It is crucial for Europeana to be recognized by search engines as a trusted authoritative repository of cultural heritage objects. Indeed, even though its portal is the main entry point, most Europeana users come to it via search engines. Europeana Collections is fuelled by metadata describing cultural objects, represented in the Europeana Data Model (EDM). This paper presents the research and consequent recommendations for publishing Europeana metadata using the Schema.org vocabulary and best practices. Schema.org html embedded metadata to be consumed by search engines to power rich services (such as Google Knowledge Graph). Schema.org is an open and widely adopted initiative (used by over 12 million domains) backed by Google, Bing, Yahoo!, and Yandex, for sharing metadata across the web It underpins the emergence of new web techniques, such as so called Semantic SEO. Our research addressed the representation of the embedded metadata as part of the Europeana HTML pages and sitemaps so that the re-use of this data can be optimized. The practical objective of our work is to produce a Schema.org representation of Europeana resources described in EDM, being the richest as possible and tailored to Europeana's realities and user needs as well the search engines and their users.