Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.014274076 = product of:
  0.08207593 = sum of:
    0.023024032 = weight(_text_:und in 1761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023024032 = score(doc=1761,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.4407773 = fieldWeight in 1761, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1761)
    0.015522547 = product of:
      0.031045094 = sum of:
        0.031045094 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 1761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031045094 = score(doc=1761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10505787 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 1761, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.031045094 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 1761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031045094 = score(doc=1761,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10505787 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 1761, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1761)
    0.012484257 = weight(_text_:im in 1761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012484257 = score(doc=1761,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066621356 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.18739122 = fieldWeight in 1761, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1761)
  0.17391305 = coord(4/23)

Abstract

Das »Semantic Web« bildet einen der wichtigsten, aktuellen Trends in der Weiterentwicklung des World Wide Web. Ehrgeizige Vision dieser nächsten Generation des WWW ist es, durch semantische Anreicherung von Information eine neue Qualität in der Bereitstellung von Inhalten und Diensten zu erreichen und vollständig neue Anwendungsmöglichkeiten für das Web zu eröffnen. Wichtige Ziele der Entwicklung des Semantic Web sind dabei die verbesserte Unterstützung von Kooperation zwischen Menschen und Computern und die intelligente Assistenz bei der Durchführung von Aufgaben in kooperativen verteilten Informationsumgebungen. Schlüssel zur Erreichung dieser Ziele sind die Anreicherung von Daten im Web mit Metadaten, welche diese Daten in einen semantischen Kontext einbetten. Diese Kontextinformation wird durch Software-Anwendungen interpretiert und zur Informationsfilterung, Verfeinerung von Anfragen und zur Bereitstellung intelligenter Assistenten verwendet. Eine große Herausforderung stellt dabei die geeignete Modellierung und Beschreibung des Kontexts dar. Diese muss eine automatische, globale Interpretation ermöglichen, ohne dass auf ein allgemeingültiges semantisches Beschreibungsschema zurückgegriffen werden kann. Die Vereinbarung eines solchen allgemeingültigen Schemas ist in einem derart umfangreichen, heterogenen und autonomen Rahmen, wie ihn das WWW darstellt, nicht möglich.

Source

Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 50(2003) H.4, S.193-198

0.011572471 = product of:
  0.08872228 = sum of:
    0.022154884 = weight(_text_:und in 115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022154884 = score(doc=115,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.42413816 = fieldWeight in 115, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=115)
    0.0457603 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0457603 = score(doc=115,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10616633 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.43102458 = fieldWeight in 115, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=115)
    0.020807097 = weight(_text_:im in 115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020807097 = score(doc=115,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.066621356 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.3123187 = fieldWeight in 115, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=115)
  0.13043478 = coord(3/23)

Abstract

Bibliografische Daten, Normdaten und Metadaten im Semantic Web - Konzepte der Bibliografischen Kontrolle im Wandel. Der Titel dieser Arbeit zielt in ein essentielles Feld der Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft, die Bibliografische Kontrolle. Als zweites zentrales Konzept wird der in der Weiterentwicklung des World Wide Webs (WWW) bedeutsame Begriff des Semantic Webs genannt. Auf den ersten Blick handelt es sich hier um einen ungleichen Wettstreit. Auf der einen Seite die Bibliografische Kontrolle, welche die Methoden und Mittel zur Erschließung von bibliothekarischen Objekten umfasst und traditionell in Form von formal-inhaltlichen Surrogaten in Katalogen daherkommt. Auf der anderen Seite das Buzzword Semantic Web mit seinen hochtrabenden Konnotationen eines durch Selbstreferenzialität "bedeutungstragenden", wenn nicht sogar "intelligenten" Webs. Wie kamen also eine wissenschaftliche Bibliothekarin und ein Mitglied des World Wide Web Consortiums 2007 dazu, gemeinsam einen Aufsatz zu publizieren und darin zu behaupten, das semantische Netz würde ein "bibliothekarischeres" Netz sein? Um sich dieser Frage zu nähern, soll zunächst kurz die historische Entwicklung der beiden Informationssphären Bibliothek und WWW gemeinsam betrachtet werden. Denn so oft - und völlig zurecht - die informationelle Revolution durch das Internet beschworen wird, so taucht auch immer wieder das Analogon einer weltweiten, virtuellen Bibliothek auf. Genauer gesagt, nahmen die theoretischen Überlegungen, die später zur Entwicklung des Internets führen sollten, ihren Ausgangspunkt (neben Kybernetik und entstehender Computertechnik) beim Konzept des Informationsspeichers Bibliothek.

Content

Magisterarbeit am Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Vgl. unter: http://woitas.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Kathi-Woitas-Magisterarbeit.pdf.

Imprint

Berlin : Humboldt-Universität, Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft

0.0034979049 = product of:
  0.026817271 = sum of:
    0.005499561 = product of:
      0.010999122 = sum of:
        0.010999122 = weight(_text_:1 in 3283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010999122 = score(doc=3283,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18998542 = fieldWeight in 3283, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3283)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.010141784 = product of:
      0.020283569 = sum of:
        0.020283569 = weight(_text_:international in 3283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020283569 = score(doc=3283,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.2579963 = fieldWeight in 3283, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3283)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.011175927 = product of:
      0.022351854 = sum of:
        0.022351854 = weight(_text_:22 in 3283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022351854 = score(doc=3283,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3283, 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=3283)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13043478 = coord(3/23)

Isbn

978-3-319-49156-1

0.003205889 = product of:
  0.036867723 = sum of:
    0.022154884 = weight(_text_:und in 3337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022154884 = score(doc=3337,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.42413816 = fieldWeight in 3337, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3337)
    0.014712838 = weight(_text_:im in 3337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014712838 = score(doc=3337,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.066621356 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.22084267 = fieldWeight in 3337, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3337)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)

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.

0.0025611662 = product of:
  0.02945341 = sum of:
    0.021398142 = product of:
      0.042796284 = sum of:
        0.042796284 = weight(_text_:kataloge in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042796284 = score(doc=731,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1351219 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.733308 = idf(docFreq=388, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.31672353 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.733308 = idf(docFreq=388, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.008055268 = product of:
      0.016110536 = sum of:
        0.016110536 = weight(_text_:29 in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016110536 = score(doc=731,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)

Date

29. 9.2022 17:43:42

Theme

Geschichte der Kataloge

8.3298836E-4 = product of:
  0.019158732 = sum of:
    0.019158732 = product of:
      0.038317464 = sum of:
        0.038317464 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038317464 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = 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)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

4.1649418E-4 = product of:
  0.009579366 = sum of:
    0.009579366 = product of:
      0.019158732 = sum of:
        0.019158732 = weight(_text_:22 in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019158732 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Date

30.12.2008 18:22:46

3.779547E-4 = product of:
  0.008692958 = sum of:
    0.008692958 = product of:
      0.017385917 = sum of:
        0.017385917 = weight(_text_:international in 5510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017385917 = score(doc=5510,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.22113968 = fieldWeight in 5510, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5510)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

Explores the opportunities for libraries to contribute to the proposed global "Semantic Web." Library name and subject authority files, including work that IFLA has done related to a new view of "Universal Bibliographic Control" in the Internet environment and the work underway in the U.S. and Europe, are making a reality of the virtual international authority file on the Web. The bibliographic and authority records created according to AACR2 reflect standards for metadata that libraries have provided for years. New opportunities for using these records in the digital world are described (interoperability), including mapping with Dublin Core metadata. AACR2 recently updated Chapter 9 on Electronic Resources. That process and highlights of the changes are described, including Library of Congress' rule interpretations.

3.5022903E-4 = product of:
  0.008055268 = sum of:
    0.008055268 = product of:
      0.016110536 = sum of:
        0.016110536 = weight(_text_:29 in 2192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016110536 = score(doc=2192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2192, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2192)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

1.3663506E-4 = product of:
  0.0031426062 = sum of:
    0.0031426062 = product of:
      0.0062852125 = sum of:
        0.0062852125 = weight(_text_:1 in 1030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0062852125 = score(doc=1030,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.1085631 = fieldWeight in 1030, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1030)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

In the last few years, the size of Linked Open Data (LOD) describing artworks, in general or domain-specific Knowledge Graphs (KGs), is gradually increasing. This provides (art-)historians and Cultural Heritage professionals with a wealth of information to explore. Specifically, structured data about iconographical and iconological (icon) aspects, i.e. information about the subjects, concepts and meanings of artworks, are extremely valuable for the state-of-the-art of computational tools, e.g. content recognition through computer vision. Nevertheless, a data quality evaluation for art domains, fundamental for data reuse, is still missing. The purpose of this study is filling this gap with an overview of art-historical data quality in current KGs with a focus on the icon aspects. Design/methodology/approach This study's analyses are based on established KG evaluation methodologies, adapted to the domain by addressing requirements from art historians' theories. The authors first select several KGs according to Semantic Web principles. Then, the authors evaluate (1) their structures' suitability to describe icon information through quantitative and qualitative assessment and (2) their content, qualitatively assessed in terms of correctness and completeness. Findings This study's results reveal several issues on the current expression of icon information in KGs. The content evaluation shows that these domain-specific statements are generally correct but often not complete. The incompleteness is confirmed by the structure evaluation, which highlights the unsuitability of the KG schemas to describe icon information with the required granularity. Originality/value The main contribution of this work is an overview of the actual landscape of the icon information expressed in LOD. Therefore, it is valuable to cultural institutions by providing them a first domain-specific data quality evaluation. Since this study's results suggest that the selected domain information is underrepresented in Semantic Web datasets, the authors highlight the need for the creation and fostering of such information to provide a more thorough art-historical dimension to LOD.