Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.044150814 = product of:
  0.08830163 = sum of:
    0.08830163 = sum of:
      0.06006708 = weight(_text_:web in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06006708 = score(doc=2661,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.35328537 = fieldWeight in 2661, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2661)
      0.028234553 = weight(_text_:22 in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028234553 = score(doc=2661,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2661, 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=2661)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The basic goal of education within a discipline is to transform a novice into an expert. This entails moving the novice toward the "semantic space" that the expert inhabits-the space of concepts, meanings, vocabularies, and other intellectual constructs that comprise the discipline. Metadata is significant to this goal in digitally mediated education environments. Encoding the experts' semantic space not only enables the sharing of semantics among discipline scientists, but also creates an environment that bridges the semantic gap between the common vocabulary of the novice and the granular descriptive language of the seasoned scientist (Greenberg, et al, 2005). Developments underlying the Semantic Web, where vocabularies are formalized in the Web Ontology Language (OWL), and Web 2.0 approaches of user-generated folksonomies provide an infrastructure for linking vocabulary systems and promoting group learning via metadata literacy. Group learning is a pedagogical approach to teaching that harnesses the phenomenon of "collective intelligence" to increase learning by means of collaboration. Learning a new semantic system can be daunting for a novice, and yet it is integral to advance one's knowledge in a discipline and retain interest. These ideas are key to the "BOT 2.0: Botany through Web 2.0, the Memex and Social Learning" project (Bot 2.0).72 Bot 2.0 is a collaboration involving the North Carolina Botanical Garden, the UNC SILS Metadata Research center, and the Renaissance Computing Institute (RENCI). Bot 2.0 presents a curriculum utilizing a memex as a way for students to link and share digital information, working asynchronously in an environment beyond the traditional classroom. Our conception of a memex is not a centralized black box but rather a flexible, distributed framework that uses the most salient and easiest-to-use collaborative platforms (e.g., Facebook, Flickr, wiki and blog technology) for personal information management. By meeting students "where they live" digitally, we hope to attract students to the study of botanical science. A key aspect is to teach students scientific terminology and about the value of metadata, an inherent function in several of the technologies and in the instructional approach we are utilizing. This poster will report on a study examining the value of both folksonomies and taxonomies for post-secondary college students learning plant identification. Our data is drawn from a curriculum involving a virtual independent learning portion and a "BotCamp" weekend at UNC, where students work with digital plan specimens that they have captured. Results provide some insight into the importance of collaboration and shared vocabulary for gaining confidence and for student progression from novice to expert in botany.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

Theme

Semantic Web

0.039321437 = product of:
  0.078642875 = sum of:
    0.078642875 = sum of:
      0.04334968 = weight(_text_:web in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04334968 = score(doc=1781,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1781, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1781)
      0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03529319 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1781, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1781)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of the Helping Interdisciplinary Vocabulary Engineering (HIVE) system on the inter-indexer consistency of information professionals when assigning keywords to a scientific abstract. This study examined first, the inter-indexer consistency of potential HIVE users; second, the impact HIVE had on consistency; and third, challenges associated with using HIVE. Design/methodology/approach - A within-subjects quasi-experimental research design was used for this study. Data were collected using a task-scenario based questionnaire. Analysis was performed on consistency results using Hooper's and Rolling's inter-indexer consistency measures. A series of t-tests was used to judge the significance between consistency measure results. Findings - Results suggest that HIVE improves inter-indexing consistency. Working with HIVE increased consistency rates by 22 percent (Rolling's) and 25 percent (Hooper's) when selecting relevant terms from all vocabularies. A statistically significant difference exists between the assignment of free-text keywords and machine-aided keywords. Issues with homographs, disambiguation, vocabulary choice, and document structure were all identified as potential challenges. Research limitations/implications - Research limitations for this study can be found in the small number of vocabularies used for the study. Future research will include implementing HIVE into the Dryad Repository and studying its application in a repository system. Originality/value - This paper showcases several features used in HIVE system. By using traditional consistency measures to evaluate a semantic web technology, this paper emphasizes the link between traditional indexing and next generation machine-aided indexing (MAI) tools.

0.03315613 = product of:
  0.06631226 = sum of:
    0.06631226 = product of:
      0.13262452 = sum of:
        0.13262452 = weight(_text_:web in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13262452 = score(doc=244,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.780033 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article explores the applicability primary library functions (collection development, cataloging, reference, and circulation) to the Semantic Web. The article defines the Semantic Web, identifies similarities between the library institution and the Semantic Web, and presents research questions guiding the inquiry. The article addresses each library function and demonstrates the applicability of each function's polices to Semantic Web development. Results indicate that library functions are applicable to Semantic Web, with "collection development" translating to "Semantic Web selection;" "cataloging" translating to "Semantic Web 'semantic' representation;" "reference" translating to "Semantic Web service," and circulation translating to "Semantic Web resource use." The last part of this article includes a discussion about the lack of embrace between the library and the Semantic Web communities, recommendations for improving this gap, and research conclusions.

Footnote

Simultaneously published as Knitting the Semantic Web

Theme

Semantic Web

0.031855382 = product of:
  0.063710764 = sum of:
    0.063710764 = product of:
      0.12742153 = sum of:
        0.12742153 = weight(_text_:web in 224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12742153 = score(doc=224,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.7494315 = fieldWeight in 224, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=224)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Simultaneously published as Knitting the Semantic Web

Theme

Semantic Web

0.020274958 = product of:
  0.040549915 = sum of:
    0.040549915 = product of:
      0.08109983 = sum of:
        0.08109983 = weight(_text_:web in 5909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08109983 = score(doc=5909,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.47698978 = fieldWeight in 5909, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5909)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article focuses on the relevance judgments made by health information users who use the Web. Health information users were conceptualized as motivated information users concerned about how an environmental issue affects their health. Users identified their own environmental health interests and conducted a Web search of a particular environmental health Web site. Users were asked to identify (by highlighting with a mouse) the criteria they use to assess relevance in both Web search engine surrogates and full-text Web documents. Content analysis of document criteria highlighted by users identified the criteria these users relied on most often. Key criteria identified included (in order of frequency of appearance) research, topic, scope, data, influence, affiliation, Web characteristics, and authority/ person. A power-law distribution of criteria was observed (a few criteria represented most of the highlighted regions, with a long tail of occasionally used criteria). Implications of this work are that information retrieval (IR) systems should be tailored in terms of users' tendencies to rely on certain document criteria, and that relevance research should combine methods to gather richer, contextualized data. Metadata for IR systems, such as that used in search engine surrogates, could be improved by taking into account actual usage of relevance criteria. Such metadata should be user-centered (based on data from users, as in this study) and contextappropriate (fit to users' situations and tasks).

0.017339872 = product of:
  0.034679744 = sum of:
    0.034679744 = product of:
      0.06935949 = sum of:
        0.06935949 = weight(_text_:web in 1251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06935949 = score(doc=1251,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 1251, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Metadata generation is the act of creating or producing metadata. Generating good quality metadata in an efficient manner is essential for organizing and making accessible the growing number of rich resources available an the Web. The success of digital libraries, the sustenance of interoperability - as promoted by the Open Archives Initiative - and the evolution of Semantic Web all rely an efficient metadata generation. This article sketches a metadata generation framework that involves processes, people and tools. It also presents selected research initiatives and highlights the goals of the Metadata Generation Research Project.

0.017135466 = product of:
  0.03427093 = sum of:
    0.03427093 = product of:
      0.06854186 = sum of:
        0.06854186 = weight(_text_:web in 4264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06854186 = score(doc=4264,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 4264, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Metadata is of paramount importance for persons, organizations, and endeavors of every dimension that are increasingly turning to the World Wide Web (hereafter referred to as the Web) as a chief conduit for accessing and disseminating information. This is evidenced by the development and implementation of metadata schemas supporting projects ranging from restricted corporate intranets, data warehouses, and consumer-oriented electronic commerce enterprises to freely accessible digital libraries, educational initiatives, virtual museums, and other public Web sites. Today's metadata activities are unprecedented because they extend beyond the traditional library environment in an effort to deal with the Web's exponential growth. This article considers metadata in today's Web environment. The article defines metadata, examines the relationship between metadata and cataloging, provides definitions for key metadata vocabulary terms, and explores the topic of metadata generation. Metadata is an extensive and expanding subject that is prevalent in many environments. For practical reasons, this article has elected to concentrate an the information resource domain, which is defined by electronic textual documents, graphical images, archival materials, museum artifacts, and other objects found in both digital and physical information centers (e.g., libraries, museums, record centers, and archives). To show the extent and larger application of metadata, several examples are also drawn from the data warehouse, electronic commerce, open source, and medical communities.

0.015326426 = product of:
  0.030652853 = sum of:
    0.030652853 = product of:
      0.061305705 = sum of:
        0.061305705 = weight(_text_:web in 1281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061305705 = score(doc=1281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 1281, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0123526165 = product of:
  0.024705233 = sum of:
    0.024705233 = product of:
      0.049410466 = sum of:
        0.049410466 = weight(_text_:22 in 2592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049410466 = score(doc=2592,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2592, 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=2592)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.007058638 = product of:
  0.014117276 = sum of:
    0.014117276 = product of:
      0.028234553 = sum of:
        0.028234553 = weight(_text_:22 in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028234553 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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