Search (32 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  1. Sewing, S.: Bestandserhaltung und Archivierung : Koordinierung auf der Basis eines gemeinsamen Metadatenformates in den deutschen und österreichischen Bibliotheksverbünden (2021) 0.01 
    0.009850507 = product of:
  0.024626266 = sum of:
    0.005779455 = weight(_text_:a in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005779455 = score(doc=266,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
    0.018846812 = product of:
      0.037693623 = sum of:
        0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037693623 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 5.2021 12:43:05
    Location
    A
    Type
    a
  2. Koho, M.; Burrows, T.; Hyvönen, E.; Ikkala, E.; Page, K.; Ransom, L.; Tuominen, J.; Emery, D.; Fraas, M.; Heller, B.; Lewis, D.; Morrison, A.; Porte, G.; Thomson, E.; Velios, A.; Wijsman, H.: Harmonizing and publishing heterogeneous premodern manuscript metadata as Linked Open Data (2022) 0.01 
    0.007508607 = product of:
  0.018771518 = sum of:
    0.013189741 = weight(_text_:a in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013189741 = score(doc=466,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.24669915 = fieldWeight in 466, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=466)
    0.0055817757 = product of:
      0.011163551 = sum of:
        0.011163551 = weight(_text_:information in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011163551 = score(doc=466,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 466, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=466)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Manuscripts are a crucial form of evidence for research into all aspects of premodern European history and culture, and there are numerous databases devoted to describing them in detail. This descriptive information, however, is typically available only in separate data silos based on incompatible data models and user interfaces. As a result, it has been difficult to study manuscripts comprehensively across these various platforms. To address this challenge, a team of manuscript scholars and computer scientists worked to create "Mapping Manuscript Migrations" (MMM), a semantic portal, and a Linked Open Data service. MMM stands as a successful proof of concept for integrating distinct manuscript datasets into a shared platform for research and discovery with the potential for future expansion. This paper will discuss the major products of the MMM project: a unified data model, a repeatable data transformation pipeline, a Linked Open Data knowledge graph, and a Semantic Web portal. It will also examine the crucial importance of an iterative process of multidisciplinary collaboration embedded throughout the project, enabling humanities researchers to shape the development of a digital platform and tools, while also enabling the same researchers to ask more sophisticated and comprehensive research questions of the aggregated data.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.2, S.240-257
    Type
    a
  3. Morrow, G.; Swire-Thompson, B.; Montgomery Polny, J.; Kopec, M.; Wihbey, J.P.: ¬The emerging science of content labeling : contextualizing social media content moderation (2022) 0.01 
    0.007058388 = product of:
  0.01764597 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=660,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
    0.009472587 = product of:
      0.018945174 = sum of:
        0.018945174 = weight(_text_:information in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018945174 = score(doc=660,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    In the online information ecosystem, a content label is an attachment to a piece of content intended to contextualize that content for the viewer. Content labels are information about information, such as fact-checks or sensitive content warnings. Research into content labeling is nascent, but growing; researchers have made strides toward understanding labeling best practices to deal with issues such as disinformation, and misleading content that may affect everything from voting to health. To make this review tractable, we focus on compiling the literature that can contextualize labeling effects and consequences. This review summarizes the central labeling literature, highlights gaps for future research, discusses considerations for social media, and explores definitions toward a taxonomy. Specifically, this article discusses the particulars of content labels, their presentation, and the effects of various labels. The current literature can guide the usage of labels on social media platforms and inform public debate over platform moderation.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.10, S.1365-1386
    Type
    a
  4. Baroncini, S.; Sartini, B.; Erp, M. Van; Tomasi, F.; Gangemi, A.: Is dc:subject enough? : A landscape on iconography and iconology statements of knowledge graphs in the semantic web (2023) 0.01 
    0.006654713 = product of:
  0.016636781 = sum of:
    0.00770594 = weight(_text_:a in 1030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00770594 = score(doc=1030,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1030, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1030)
    0.0089308405 = product of:
      0.017861681 = sum of:
        0.017861681 = weight(_text_:information in 1030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017861681 = score(doc=1030,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 1030, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1030)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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.
    Type
    a
  5. Furner, J.: Definitions of "metadata" : a brief survey of international standards (2020) 0.01 
    0.006219466 = product of:
  0.015548665 = sum of:
    0.010812371 = weight(_text_:a in 5912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010812371 = score(doc=5912,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 5912, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5912)
    0.0047362936 = product of:
      0.009472587 = sum of:
        0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 5912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009472587 = score(doc=5912,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5912, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5912)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    A search on the term "metadata" in the International Organization for Standardization's Online Browsing Platform (ISO OBP) reveals that there are 96 separate ISO standards that provide definitions of the term. Between them, these standards supply 46 different definitions-a lack of standardization that we might not have expected, given the context. In fact, if we make creative use of Simpson's index of concentration (originally devised as a measure of ecological diversity) to measure the degree of standardization of definition in this case, we arrive at a value of 0.05, on a scale of zero to one. It is suggested, however, that the situation is not as problematic as it might seem: that low cross-domain levels of standardization of definition should not be cause for concern.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.6, S.E33-E42
    Type
    a
  6. Zavalin, V.: Exploration of subject and genre representation in bibliographic metadata representing works of fiction for children and young adults (2024) 0.01 
    0.006112744 = product of:
  0.01528186 = sum of:
    0.007078358 = weight(_text_:a in 1152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007078358 = score(doc=1152,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1152, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1152)
    0.008203502 = product of:
      0.016407004 = sum of:
        0.016407004 = weight(_text_:information in 1152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016407004 = score(doc=1152,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 1152, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This study examines subject and genre representation in metadata that describes information resources created for children and young adult audiences. Both quantitative and limited qualitative analyses were applied to the analysis of WorldCat records collected in 2021 and contributed by the Children's and Young Adults' Cataloging Program at the US Library of Congress. This dataset contains records created several years prior to the data collection point and edited by various OCLC member institutions. Findings provide information on the level and patterns of application of these kinds of metadata important for information access, with a focus on the fields, subfields, and controlled vocabularies used. The discussion of results includes a detailed evaluation of genre and subject metadata quality (accuracy, completeness, and consistency).
    Type
    a
  7. Yang, T.-H.; Hsieh, Y.-L.; Liu, S.-H.; Chang, Y.-C.; Hsu, W.-L.: ¬A flexible template generation and matching method with applications for publication reference metadata extraction (2021) 0.01 
    0.005278751 = product of:
  0.013196876 = sum of:
    0.0076151006 = weight(_text_:a in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076151006 = score(doc=63,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
    0.0055817757 = product of:
      0.011163551 = sum of:
        0.011163551 = weight(_text_:information in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011163551 = score(doc=63,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Conventional rule-based approaches use exact template matching to capture linguistic information and necessarily need to enumerate all variations. We propose a novel flexible template generation and matching scheme called the principle-based approach (PBA) based on sequence alignment, and employ it for reference metadata extraction (RME) to demonstrate its effectiveness. The main contributions of this research are threefold. First, we propose an automatic template generation that can capture prominent patterns using the dominating set algorithm. Second, we devise an alignment-based template-matching technique that uses a logistic regression model, which makes it more general and flexible than pure rule-based approaches. Last, we apply PBA to RME on extensive cross-domain corpora and demonstrate its robustness and generality. Experiments reveal that the same set of templates produced by the PBA framework not only deliver consistent performance on various unseen domains, but also surpass hand-crafted knowledge (templates). We use four independent journal style test sets and one conference style test set in the experiments. When compared to renowned machine learning methods, such as conditional random fields (CRF), as well as recent deep learning methods (i.e., bi-directional long short-term memory with a CRF layer, Bi-LSTM-CRF), PBA has the best performance for all datasets.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.1, S.32-45
    Type
    a
  8. Vorndran, A.; Grund, S.: Metadata sharing : how to transfer metadata information among work cluster members (2021) 0.01 
    0.0051638708 = product of:
  0.012909677 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=721,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 721, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=721)
    0.0047362936 = product of:
      0.009472587 = sum of:
        0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009472587 = score(doc=721,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 721, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=721)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The German National Library (DNB) is using a clustering technique to aggregate works from the database Culturegraph. Culturegraph collects bibliographic metadata records from all German Regional Library Networks, the Austrian Library Network, and DNB. This stock of about 180 million records serves as the basis for work clustering-the attempt to assemble all manifestations of a work in one cluster. The results of this work clustering are not employed in the display of search results, as other similar approaches successfully do, but for transferring metadata elements among the cluster members. In this paper the transfer of content-descriptive metadata elements such as controlled and uncontrolled index terms and classifications and links to name records in the German Integrated Authority File (GND) are described. In this way, standardization and cross linking can be improved and the richness of metadata description can be enhanced.
    Type
    a
  9. Hansson, K.; Dahlgren, A.: Open research data repositories : practices, norms, and metadata for sharing images (2022) 0.00 
    0.004915534 = product of:
  0.012288835 = sum of:
    0.008341924 = weight(_text_:a in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008341924 = score(doc=472,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 472, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=472)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=472,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 472, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=472)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Open research data repositories are promoted as one of the cornerstones in the open research paradigm, promoting collaboration, interoperability, and large-scale sharing and reuse. There is, however, a lack of research investigating what these sharing platforms actually share and a more critical interface analysis of the norms and practices embedded in this datafication of academic practice is needed. This article takes image data sharing in the humanities as a case study for investigating the possibilities and constraints in 5 open research data repositories. By analyzing the visual and textual content of the interface along with the technical means for metadata, the study shows how the platforms are differentiated in terms of signifiers of research paradigms, but that beneath the rhetoric of the interface, they are designed in a similar way, which does not correspond well with the image researchers' need for detailed metadata. Combined with the problem of copyright limitations, these data-sharing tools are simply not sophisticated enough when it comes to sharing and reusing images. The result also corresponds with previous research showing that these tools are used not so much for sharing research data, but more for promoting researcher personas.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.2, S.303-316
    Type
    a
  10. Lee, S.: Pidgin metadata framework as a mediator for metadata interoperability (2021) 0.00 
    0.004915534 = product of:
  0.012288835 = sum of:
    0.008341924 = weight(_text_:a in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008341924 = score(doc=654,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 654, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=654)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 654, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    A pidgin metadata framework based on the concept of pidgin metadata is proposed to complement the limitations of existing approaches to metadata interoperability and to achieve more reliable metadata interoperability. The framework consists of three layers, with a hierarchical structure, and reflects the semantic and structural characteristics of various metadata. Layer 1 performs both an external function, serving as an anchor for semantic association between metadata elements, and an internal function, providing semantic categories that can encompass detailed elements. Layer 2 is an arbitrary layer composed of substantial elements from existing metadata and performs a function in which different metadata elements describing the same or similar aspects of information resources are associated with the semantic categories of Layer 1. Layer 3 implements the semantic relationships between Layer 1 and Layer 2 through the Resource Description Framework syntax. With this structure, the pidgin metadata framework can establish the criteria for semantic connection between different elements and fully reflect the complexity and heterogeneity among various metadata. Additionally, it is expected to provide a bibliographic environment that can achieve more reliable metadata interoperability than existing approaches by securing the communication between metadata.
    Type
    a
  11. Skare, R.: Paratext (2020) 0.00 
    0.0047055925 = product of:
  0.011763981 = sum of:
    0.005448922 = weight(_text_:a in 20) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005448922 = score(doc=20,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 20, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=20)
    0.006315058 = product of:
      0.012630116 = sum of:
        0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 20) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012630116 = score(doc=20,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 20, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=20)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article presents Gérard Genette's concept of the paratext by defining the term and by describing its characteristics. The use of the concept in disciplines other than literary studies and for media other than printed books is discussed. The last section shows the relevance of the concept for library and information science in general and for knowledge organization, in which paratext in particular is connected to the concept "metadata."
    Type
    a
  12. Assfalg, R.: Metadaten (2023) 0.00 
    0.0047055925 = product of:
  0.011763981 = sum of:
    0.005448922 = weight(_text_:a in 787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005448922 = score(doc=787,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 787, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=787)
    0.006315058 = product of:
      0.012630116 = sum of:
        0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012630116 = score(doc=787,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 787, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=787)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Bei der Betrachtung von Datensätzen in relationalen Datenbanksystemen, von Datenmengen im Kontext von Big Data, von Ausprägungen gängiger XML-Anwendungen oder von Referenzdatenbeständen im Bereich Information und Dokumentation (IuD), fällt eine wichtige Gemeinsamkeit auf: Diese Bestände benötigen eine Beschreibung ihrer inneren Struktur. Bei diesen Strukturbeschreibungen handelt es sich also sozusagen um "Daten über Daten", und diese können kurz gefasst auch als Metadaten bezeichnet werden. Hierzu gehören Syntaxelemente und ggf. eine Spezifikation, wie diese Syntaxelemente angewendet werden.
    Type
    a
  13. Gartner, R.: Metadata in the digital library : building an integrated strategy with XML (2021) 0.00 
    0.00460898 = product of:
  0.01152245 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=732,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 732, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=732)
    0.0033490653 = product of:
      0.0066981306 = sum of:
        0.0066981306 = weight(_text_:information in 732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0066981306 = score(doc=732,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.08228803 = fieldWeight in 732, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=732)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This book provides a practical introduction to metadata for the digital library, describing in detail how to implement a strategic approach which will enable complex digital objects to be discovered, delivered and preserved in the short- and long-term.
    The range of metadata needed to run a digital library and preserve its collections in the long term is much more extensive and complicated than anything in its traditional counterpart. It includes the same 'descriptive' information which guides users to the resources they require but must supplement this with comprehensive 'administrative' metadata: this encompasses technical details of the files that make up its collections, the documentation of complex intellectual property rights and the extensive set needed to support its preservation in the long-term. To accommodate all of this requires the use of multiple metadata standards, all of which have to be brought together into a single integrated whole.
    Metadata in the Digital Library is a complete guide to building a digital library metadata strategy from scratch, using established metadata standards bound together by the markup language XML. The book introduces the reader to the theory of metadata and shows how it can be applied in practice. It lays out the basic principles that should underlie any metadata strategy, including its relation to such fundamentals as the digital curation lifecycle, and demonstrates how they should be put into effect. It introduces the XML language and the key standards for each type of metadata, including Dublin Core and MODS for descriptive metadata and PREMIS for its administrative and preservation counterpart. Finally, the book shows how these can all be integrated using the packaging standard METS. Two case studies from the Warburg Institute in London show how the strategy can be implemented in a working environment. The strategy laid out in this book will ensure that a digital library's metadata will support all of its operations, be fully interoperable with others and enable its long-term preservation. It assumes no prior knowledge of metadata, XML or any of the standards that it covers. It provides both an introduction to best practices in digital library metadata and a manual for their practical implementation.
    Content
    Inhalt: 1 Introduction, Aims and Definitions -- 1.1 Origins -- 1.2 From information science to libraries -- 1.3 The central place of metadata -- 1.4 The book in outline -- 2 Metadata Basics -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Three types of metadata -- 2.2.1 Descriptive metadata -- 2.2.2 Administrative metadata -- 2.2.3 Structural metadata -- 2.3 The core components of metadata -- 2.3.1 Syntax -- 2.3.2 Semantics -- 2.3.3 Content rules -- 2.4 Metadata standards -- 2.5 Conclusion -- 3 Planning a Metadata Strategy: Basic Principles -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 Principle 1: Support all stages of the digital curation lifecycle -- 3.3 Principle 2: Support the long-term preservation of the digital object -- 3.4 Principle 3: Ensure interoperability -- 3.5 Principle 4: Control metadata content wherever possible -- 3.6 Principle 5: Ensure software independence -- 3.7 Principle 6: Impose a logical system of identifiers -- 3.8 Principle 7: Use standards whenever possible -- 3.9 Principle 8: Ensure the integrity of the metadata itself -- 3.10 Summary: the basic principles of a metadata strategy -- 4 Planning a Metadata Strategy: Applying the Basic Principles -- 4.1 Introduction -- 4.2 Initial steps: standards as a foundation -- 4.2.1 'Off-the shelf' standards -- 4.2.2 Mapping out an architecture and serialising it into a standard -- 4.2.3 Devising a local metadata scheme -- 4.2.4 How standards support the basic principles -- 4.3 Identifiers: everything in its place -- 5 XML: The Syntactical Foundation of Metadata -- 5.1 Introduction -- 5.2 What XML looks like -- 5.3 XML schemas -- 5.4 Namespaces -- 5.5 Creating and editing XML -- 5.6 Transforming XML -- 5.7 Why use XML? -- 6 METS: The Metadata Package -- 6.1 Introduction -- 6.2 Why use METS?.
  14. Laparra, E.; Binford-Walsh, A.; Emerson, K.; Miller, M.L.; López-Hoffman, L.; Currim, F.; Bethard, S.: Addressing structural hurdles for metadata extraction from environmental impact statements (2023) 0.00 
    0.004303226 = product of:
  0.010758064 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 1042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=1042,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1042, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1042)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 1042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=1042,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1042, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1042)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Natural language processing techniques can be used to analyze the linguistic content of a document to extract missing pieces of metadata. However, accurate metadata extraction may not depend solely on the linguistics, but also on structural problems such as extremely large documents, unordered multi-file documents, and inconsistency in manually labeled metadata. In this work, we start from two standard machine learning solutions to extract pieces of metadata from Environmental Impact Statements, environmental policy documents that are regularly produced under the US National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. We present a series of experiments where we evaluate how these standard approaches are affected by different issues derived from real-world data. We find that metadata extraction can be strongly influenced by nonlinguistic factors such as document length and volume ordering and that the standard machine learning solutions often do not scale well to long documents. We demonstrate how such solutions can be better adapted to these scenarios, and conclude with suggestions for other NLP practitioners cataloging large document collections.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.9, S.1124-1139
    Type
    a
  15. Qualität in der Inhaltserschließung (2021) 0.00 
    0.0033273564 = product of:
  0.008318391 = sum of:
    0.00385297 = weight(_text_:a in 753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00385297 = score(doc=753,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.072065435 = fieldWeight in 753, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=753)
    0.0044654203 = product of:
      0.0089308405 = sum of:
        0.0089308405 = weight(_text_:information in 753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0089308405 = score(doc=753,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 753, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=753)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    Inhalt: Editorial - Michael Franke-Maier, Anna Kasprzik, Andreas Ledl und Hans Schürmann Qualität in der Inhaltserschließung - Ein Überblick aus 50 Jahren (1970-2020) - Andreas Ledl Fit for Purpose - Standardisierung von inhaltserschließenden Informationen durch Richtlinien für Metadaten - Joachim Laczny Neue Wege und Qualitäten - Die Inhaltserschließungspolitik der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek - Ulrike Junger und Frank Scholze Wissensbasen für die automatische Erschließung und ihre Qualität am Beispiel von Wikidata - Lydia Pintscher, Peter Bourgonje, Julián Moreno Schneider, Malte Ostendorff und Georg Rehm Qualitätssicherung in der GND - Esther Scheven Qualitätskriterien und Qualitätssicherung in der inhaltlichen Erschließung - Thesenpapier des Expertenteams RDA-Anwendungsprofil für die verbale Inhaltserschließung (ET RAVI) Coli-conc - Eine Infrastruktur zur Nutzung und Erstellung von Konkordanzen - Uma Balakrishnan, Stefan Peters und Jakob Voß Methoden und Metriken zur Messung von OCR-Qualität für die Kuratierung von Daten und Metadaten - Clemens Neudecker, Karolina Zaczynska, Konstantin Baierer, Georg Rehm, Mike Gerber und Julián Moreno Schneider Datenqualität als Grundlage qualitativer Inhaltserschließung - Jakob Voß Bemerkungen zu der Qualitätsbewertung von MARC-21-Datensätzen - Rudolf Ungváry und Péter Király Named Entity Linking mit Wikidata und GND - Das Potenzial handkuratierter und strukturierter Datenquellen für die semantische Anreicherung von Volltexten - Sina Menzel, Hannes Schnaitter, Josefine Zinck, Vivien Petras, Clemens Neudecker, Kai Labusch, Elena Leitner und Georg Rehm Ein Protokoll für den Datenabgleich im Web am Beispiel von OpenRefine und der Gemeinsamen Normdatei (GND) - Fabian Steeg und Adrian Pohl Verbale Erschließung in Katalogen und Discovery-Systemen - Überlegungen zur Qualität - Heidrun Wiesenmüller Inhaltserschließung für Discovery-Systeme gestalten - Jan Frederik Maas Evaluierung von Verschlagwortung im Kontext des Information Retrievals - Christian Wartena und Koraljka Golub Die Qualität der Fremddatenanreicherung FRED - Cyrus Beck Quantität als Qualität - Was die Verbünde zur Verbesserung der Inhaltserschließung beitragen können - Rita Albrecht, Barbara Block, Mathias Kratzer und Peter Thiessen Hybride Künstliche Intelligenz in der automatisierten Inhaltserschließung - Harald Sack
    Editor
    Franke-Maier, M., A. Kasprzik, A. Ledl u. H. Schürmann
    Footnote
    Vgl.: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110691597/html. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110691597. Rez. in: Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis 73(2022) H.2-3, S.131-132 (B. Lorenz u. V. Steyer). Weitere Rezension in: o-bib 9(20229 Nr.3. (Martin Völkl) [https://www.o-bib.de/bib/article/view/5843/8714].
  16. Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Ma, X.; Chen, J.; Liang, H.: Designing for serendipity in online knowledge communities : an investigation of tag presentation formats and openness to experience (2022) 0.00 
    0.002940995 = product of:
  0.007352487 = sum of:
    0.0034055763 = weight(_text_:a in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0034055763 = score(doc=664,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 664, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=664)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=664,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 664, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=664)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.10, S.1401-1417
    Type
    a
  17. Haider, S.: Library cataloging, classification, and metadata research : a bibliography of doctoral dissertations - a supplement, 1982-2020Salman (2021) 0.00 
    0.0028313433 = product of:
  0.014156716 = sum of:
    0.014156716 = weight(_text_:a in 674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014156716 = score(doc=674,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.26478532 = fieldWeight in 674, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=674)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Type
    a
  18. Haider, S.: Library cataloging, classification, and metadata research : a bibliography of doctoral dissertations (2020) 0.00 
    0.002311782 = product of:
  0.01155891 = sum of:
    0.01155891 = weight(_text_:a in 5750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01155891 = score(doc=5750,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 5750, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5750)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Type
    a
  19. Lynch, J.D.; Gibson, J.; Han, M.-J.: Analyzing and normalizing type metadata for a large aggregated digital library (2020) 0.00 
    0.0019071229 = product of:
  0.009535614 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 5720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=5720,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5720, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5720)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The Illinois Digital Heritage Hub (IDHH) gathers and enhances metadata from contributing institutions around the state of Illinois and provides this metadata to th Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) for greater access. The IDHH helps contributors shape their metadata to the standards recommended and required by the DPLA in part by analyzing and enhancing aggregated metadata. In late 2018, the IDHH undertook a project to address a particularly problematic field, Type metadata. This paper walks through the project, detailing the process of gathering and analyzing metadata using the DPLA API and OpenRefine, data remediation through XSL transformations in conjunction with local improvements by contributing institutions, and the DPLA ingestion system's quality controls.
    Type
    a
  20. Guerrini, M.: Metadata: the dimension of cataloging in the digital age (2022) 0.00 
    0.0019071229 = product of:
  0.009535614 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=735,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 735, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=735)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Metadata creation is the process of recording metadata, that is data essential to the identification and retrieval of any type of resource, including bibliographic resources. Metadata capable of identifying characteristics of an entity have always existed. However, the triggering event that has rewritten and enhanced their value is the digital revolution. Cataloging is configured as an action of creating metadata. While cataloging produces a catalog, that is a list of records relating to various types of resources, ordered and searchable, according to a defined criterion, the metadata process produces the metadata of the resources.
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

  • e 24
  • d 8

Types

  • a 29
  • el 4
  • m 2
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications