Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

0.005245457 = product of:
  0.040215172 = sum of:
    0.015508419 = weight(_text_:und in 3228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015508419 = score(doc=3228,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.2968967 = fieldWeight in 3228, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3228)
    0.014564968 = weight(_text_:im in 3228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014564968 = score(doc=3228,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066621356 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.2186231 = fieldWeight in 3228, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3228)
    0.010141784 = product of:
      0.020283569 = sum of:
        0.020283569 = weight(_text_:international in 3228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020283569 = score(doc=3228,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.2579963 = fieldWeight in 3228, 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=3228)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13043478 = coord(3/23)

Abstract

Das DCMI Type Vocabulary ist ein kontrolliertes Vokabular für Objekttypen. Es unterstützt die Interoperabilität durch die Vorgabe von Termen, die als Wert für das Dublin Core Type Element anwendungsübergreifend genutzt werden können. Das Vokabular setzt sich aus 12 allgemeinen Termen zusammen, die gleichzeitig auch Teil der umfangreicheren DCMI Metadata Terms sind. Die vorliegende Übersetzung entstand auf Anfrage und in Zusammenarbeit mit einer Arbeitsgruppe der DINI-AG Elektronisches Publizieren, die im Kontext der Weiterentwicklung von XMetaDiss zu XmetaDissPlus und dem DINI-Zertifikat ein "Gemeinsames Vokabular für Publikations- und Dokumenttpyen" erarbeitet hat. Dieses Vokabular stützt sich auf die vorhandenen, international verbreiteten Vorgaben, insbesondere das vorliegende DCMI Type Vocabulary sowie das Publication Type Vocabulary der Driver Guidelines.

0.0027507748 = product of:
  0.03163391 = sum of:
    0.016921071 = weight(_text_:und in 3230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016921071 = score(doc=3230,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.32394084 = fieldWeight in 3230, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3230)
    0.014712838 = weight(_text_:im in 3230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014712838 = score(doc=3230,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.066621356 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.22084267 = fieldWeight in 3230, 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=3230)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)

Abstract

Dieses Dokument beschreibt das Abstraktmodell für Dublin-Core-Metadaten. Ziel des Dokuments ist es vor allem, die Elemente und Strukturen, die in Dublin-Core-Metadaten verwendet werden, zu benennen. Das Dokument definiert die verwendeten Elemente und beschreibt, wie sie miteinander kombiniert werden, um Informationsstrukturen zu bilden. Es stellt ein von jeglicher besonderen Codierungssyntax unabhängiges Informationsmodell dar. Ein solches Informationsmodell macht es uns möglich, die Beschreibungen, die wir codieren wollen, besser zu verstehen und erleichtert die Entwicklung besserer Mappings und syntaxübergreifender Datenkonvertierungen. Dieses Dokument richtet sich in erster Linie an Entwickler von Softwareanwendungen, die Dublin-Core-Metadaten unterstützen, an Personen, die neue syntaktische Codierungsrichtlinien für Dublin-Core-Metadaten entwickeln und an Personen, die Metadatenprofile entwickeln, die auf DCMI- oder anderen kompatibelen Vokabularen basieren. Das DCMI-Abstraktmodell basiert auf der Arbeit des World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) am Resource Description Framework (RDF). Die Verwendung von Konzepten aus RDF wird unten im Abschnitt 5 zusammengefasst. Das DCMI-Abstraktmodell wird hier mit UML-Klassen-Diagrammen dargestellt. Für Leser, die solche UML-Klassen-Diagramme nicht kennen, eine kurze Anleitung: Linien, die in einem Maßpfeil enden, werden als 'ist' oder 'ist eine' gelesen (z.B. "value ist eine resource"). Linien, die mit einer Raute beginnen, werden als 'hat' oder 'hat eine' gelesen (z.B. "statement hat einen property URI"). Andere Beziehungen werden entsprechend gekennzeichnet. Die kursiv geschriebenen Wörter und Phrasen in diesem Dokument werden im Abschnitt 7 ("Terminologie") definiert. Wir danken Dan Brickley, Rachel Heery, Alistair Miles, Sarah Pulis, den Mitgliedern des DCMI Usage Board und den Mitgliedern der DCMI Architecture Community für ihr Feedback zu den vorangegangenen Versionen dieses Dokuments.

0.0011130024 = product of:
  0.0127995275 = sum of:
    0.0055553955 = product of:
      0.011110791 = sum of:
        0.011110791 = weight(_text_:1 in 6471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011110791 = score(doc=6471,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.19191428 = fieldWeight in 6471, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6471)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0072441325 = product of:
      0.014488265 = sum of:
        0.014488265 = weight(_text_:international in 6471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014488265 = score(doc=6471,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18428308 = fieldWeight in 6471, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6471)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)

Abstract

Metadata interoperability is a fundamental requirement for access to information within networked knowledge organization systems. The Harmony international digital library project [1] has developed a common underlying data model (the ABC model) to enable the scalable mapping of metadata descriptions across domains and media types. The ABC model [2] provides a set of basic building blocks for metadata modeling and recognizes the importance of 'events' to describe unambiguously metadata for objects with a complex history. To test and evaluate the interoperability capabilities of this model, we applied it to some real multimedia examples and analysed the results of mapping from the ABC model to various different metadata domains using XSLT [3]. This work revealed serious limitations in the ability of XSLT to support flexible dynamic semantic mapping. To overcome this, we developed MetaNet [4], a metadata term thesaurus which provides the additional semantic knowledge that is non-existent within declarative XML-encoded metadata descriptions. This paper describes MetaNet, its RDF Schema [5] representation and a hybrid mapping approach which combines the structural and syntactic mapping capabilities of XSLT with the semantic knowledge of MetaNet, to enable flexible and dynamic mapping among metadata standards.

Source

Journal of digital information. 1(2001) no.8, art.# 42

8.704906E-4 = product of:
  0.020021284 = sum of:
    0.020021284 = weight(_text_:und in 3229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020021284 = score(doc=3229,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.38329202 = fieldWeight in 3229, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3229)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

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.

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

7.559094E-4 = product of:
  0.017385917 = sum of:
    0.017385917 = product of:
      0.034771834 = sum of:
        0.034771834 = weight(_text_:international in 6804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034771834 = score(doc=6804,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.44227937 = fieldWeight in 6804, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6804)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

5.779535E-4 = product of:
  0.013292931 = sum of:
    0.013292931 = weight(_text_:und in 516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013292931 = score(doc=516,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.2544829 = fieldWeight in 516, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=516)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

Dublin-Core-Metadaten-Elemente sind ein Standard zur Beschreibung unterschiedlicher Objekte. Die Kernelemente dieses Standards werden in dem "Dublin Core Metadata Element Set" beschrieben (http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dces/). Das Set setzt sich aus 15 Elementen zusammen, die gleichzeitig auch Teil der umfangreicheren "DCMI Metadata Terms" (http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/) sind, wobei die "DCMI Metadata Terms" neben weiteren Elementen auch ein kontrolliertes Vokabular für Objekttypen enthalten. Die Übersetzung entstand zwischen April und Juli 2007 in der KIM-Arbeitsgruppe Übersetzung DCMES (http://www.kim-forum.org/kim-ag/index.htm). Anfang Juli 2007 wurde der Entwurf der Übersetzung in einem Blog veröffentlicht und die Öffentlichkeit aufgefordert, diesen Entwurf zu kommentieren. Anfang August wurden dann die in dem Blog gesammelten Kommentare in der KIM-Arbeitsgruppe Übersetzung DCMES diskutiert und so weit möglich in den Übersetzungsentwurf eingearbeitet.

5.565012E-4 = product of:
  0.0063997637 = sum of:
    0.0027776978 = product of:
      0.0055553955 = sum of:
        0.0055553955 = weight(_text_:1 in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0055553955 = score(doc=1216,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.09595714 = fieldWeight in 1216, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1216)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0036220662 = product of:
      0.0072441325 = sum of:
        0.0072441325 = weight(_text_:international in 1216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0072441325 = score(doc=1216,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.09214154 = fieldWeight in 1216, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1216)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)

Abstract

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.

Source

D-Lib magazine. 7(2001) no.1, xx S

5.553256E-4 = product of:
  0.012772488 = sum of:
    0.012772488 = product of:
      0.025544977 = sum of:
        0.025544977 = weight(_text_:22 in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025544977 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = 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)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Date

10. 9.2004 10:22:40

4.903207E-4 = product of:
  0.011277375 = sum of:
    0.011277375 = product of:
      0.02255475 = sum of:
        0.02255475 = weight(_text_:29 in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02255475 = score(doc=1155,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Date

26.12.2011 16:29:02

4.4094716E-4 = product of:
  0.010141784 = sum of:
    0.010141784 = product of:
      0.020283569 = sum of:
        0.020283569 = weight(_text_:international in 2795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020283569 = score(doc=2795,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.2579963 = fieldWeight in 2795, 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=2795)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative continues to grow in participation and recognition as the predominant resource discovery metadata standard on the Internet. With its approval as ISO 15836, DC is firmly established as a foundation block of modular, interoperable metadata for distributed resources. This report summarizes developments in DCMI over the past year, including the annual conference, progress of working groups, new developments in encoding methods, and advances in documentation and dissemination. New developments in broadening the community to commercial users of metadata are discussed, and plans for an international network of national affiliates are described.

3.415876E-4 = product of:
  0.007856515 = sum of:
    0.007856515 = product of:
      0.01571303 = sum of:
        0.01571303 = weight(_text_:1 in 3395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01571303 = score(doc=3395,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.27140775 = fieldWeight in 3395, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3395)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Isbn

1-8880124-73-4

3.149623E-4 = product of:
  0.0072441325 = sum of:
    0.0072441325 = product of:
      0.014488265 = sum of:
        0.014488265 = weight(_text_:international in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014488265 = score(doc=1187,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18428308 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

In June of this year, I performed my final official duties as part of the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative management team. It is a happy irony to affix a seal on that service in this journal, as both D-Lib Magazine and the Dublin Core celebrate their tenth anniversaries. This essay is a personal reflection on some of the achievements and lessons of that decade. The OCLC-NCSA Metadata Workshop took place in March of 1995, and as we tried to understand what it meant and who would care, D-Lib magazine came into being and offered a natural venue for sharing our work. I recall a certain skepticism when Bill Arms said "We want D-Lib to be the first place people look for the latest developments in digital library research." These were the early days in the evolution of electronic publishing, and the goal was ambitious. By any measure, a decade of high-quality electronic publishing is an auspicious accomplishment, and D-Lib (and its host, CNRI) deserve congratulations for having achieved their goal. I am grateful to have been a contributor. That first DC workshop led to further workshops, a community, a variety of standards in several countries, an ISO standard, a conference series, and an international consortium. Looking back on this evolution is both satisfying and wistful. While I am pleased that the achievements are substantial, the unmet challenges also provide a rich till in which to cultivate insights on the development of digital infrastructure.

3.149623E-4 = product of:
  0.0072441325 = sum of:
    0.0072441325 = product of:
      0.014488265 = sum of:
        0.014488265 = weight(_text_:international in 1237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014488265 = score(doc=1237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18428308 = fieldWeight in 1237, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1237)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

Metadata is a keystone component for a broad spectrum of applications that are emerging on the Web to help stitch together content and services and make them more visible to users. The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) has led the development of structured metadata to support resource discovery. This international community has, over a period of 6 years and 8 workshops, brought forth: * A core standard that enhances cross-disciplinary discovery and has been translated into 25 languages to date; * A conceptual framework that supports the modular development of auxiliary metadata components; * An open consensus building process that has brought to fruition Australian, European and North American standards with promise as a global standard for resource discovery; * An open community of hundreds of practitioners and theorists who have found a common ground of principles, procedures, core semantics, and a framework to support interoperable metadata. The 8th Dublin Core Metadata Workshop capped an active year of progress that included standardization of the 15-element core foundation and approval of an initial array of Dublin Core Qualifiers. While there is important work to be done to promote stability and increased adoption of the Dublin Core, the time has come to look beyond the core elements towards a broader metadata agenda. This report describes the new mission statement of the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) that supports the agenda, recapitulates the important milestones of the year 2000, outlines activities of the 8th DCMI workshop in Ottawa, and summarizes the 2001 workplan.

2.776628E-4 = product of:
  0.006386244 = sum of:
    0.006386244 = product of:
      0.012772488 = sum of:
        0.012772488 = weight(_text_:22 in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012772488 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = 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)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Date

26.12.2011 14:01:22

2.3911135E-4 = product of:
  0.005499561 = sum of:
    0.005499561 = product of:
      0.010999122 = sum of:
        0.010999122 = weight(_text_:1 in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010999122 = score(doc=5896,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18998542 = fieldWeight in 5896, 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=5896)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Journal of digital information. 1(2001) no.8

2.3911135E-4 = product of:
  0.005499561 = sum of:
    0.005499561 = product of:
      0.010999122 = sum of:
        0.010999122 = weight(_text_:1 in 2294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010999122 = score(doc=2294,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18998542 = fieldWeight in 2294, 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=2294)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

Purpose: Investigate the combination of controlled and folksonomy approaches to support resource discovery in repositories and digital collections. Aim: Investigate whether use of an established controlled vocabulary can help improve social tagging for better resource discovery. Objectives: (1) Investigate indexing aspects when using only social tagging versus when using social tagging with suggestions from a controlled vocabulary; (2) Investigate above in two different contexts: tagging by readers and tagging by authors; (3) Investigate influence of only social tagging versus social tagging with a controlled vocabulary on retrieval. - Vgl.: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/projects/enhanced-tagging/.

1.3663506E-4 = product of:
  0.0031426062 = sum of:
    0.0031426062 = product of:
      0.0062852125 = sum of:
        0.0062852125 = weight(_text_:1 in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0062852125 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.1085631 = fieldWeight in 1177, 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=1177)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

This is the second part of an analysis of the methods that have been used to achieve or improve interoperability among metadata schemas and their applications in order to facilitate the conversion and exchange of metadata and to enable cross-domain metadata harvesting and federated searches. From a methodological point of view, implementing interoperability may be considered at different levels of operation: schema level (discussed in Part I of the article), record level (discussed in Part II of the article), and repository level (also discussed in Part II). The results of efforts to improve interoperability may be observed from different perspectives as well, including element-based and value-based approaches. As discussed in Part I of this study, the results of efforts to improve interoperability can be observed at different levels: 1. Schema level - Efforts are focused on the elements of the schemas, being independent of any applications. The results usually appear as derived element sets or encoded schemas, crosswalks, application profiles, and element registries. 2. Record level - Efforts are intended to integrate the metadata records through the mapping of the elements according to the semantic meanings of these elements. Common results include converted records and new records resulting from combining values of existing records. 3. Repository level - With harvested or integrated records from varying sources, efforts at this level focus on mapping value strings associated with particular elements (e.g., terms associated with subject or format elements). The results enable cross-collection searching. In the following sections, we will continue to analyze interoperability efforts and methodologies, focusing on the record level and the repository level. It should be noted that the models to be discussed in this article are not always mutually exclusive. Sometimes, within a particular project, more than one method may be used.