Search (20 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  1. DeZelar-Tiedman, C.: Exploring user-contributed metadata's potential to enhance access to literary works (2011) 0.08 
    0.0788182 = product of:
  0.1576364 = sum of:
    0.1576364 = sum of:
      0.11661082 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11661082 = score(doc=2595,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.39137518 = fieldWeight in 2595, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2595)
      0.041025586 = weight(_text_:22 in 2595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041025586 = score(doc=2595,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2595, 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=2595)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Academic libraries have moved toward providing social networking features, such as tagging, in their library catalogs. To explore whether user tags can enhance access to individual literary works, the author obtained a sample of individual works of English and American literature from the twentieth and twenty-first centuries from a large academic library catalog and searched them in LibraryThing. The author compared match rates, the availability of subject headings and tags across various literary forms, and the terminology used in tags versus controlled-vocabulary headings on a subset of records. In addition, she evaluated the usefulness of available LibraryThing tags for the library catalog records that lacked subject headings. Options for utilizing the subject terms available in sources outside the local catalog also are discussed.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  2. Belém, F.M.; Almeida, J.M.; Gonçalves, M.A.: ¬A survey on tag recommendation methods : a review (2017) 0.07 
    0.06568184 = product of:
  0.13136367 = sum of:
    0.13136367 = sum of:
      0.09717569 = weight(_text_:tagging in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09717569 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.326146 = fieldWeight in 3524, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3524)
      0.03418799 = weight(_text_:22 in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03418799 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3524, 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=3524)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Tags (keywords freely assigned by users to describe web content) have become highly popular on Web 2.0 applications, because of the strong stimuli and easiness for users to create and describe their own content. This increase in tag popularity has led to a vast literature on tag recommendation methods. These methods aim at assisting users in the tagging process, possibly increasing the quality of the generated tags and, consequently, improving the quality of the information retrieval (IR) services that rely on tags as data sources. Regardless of the numerous and diversified previous studies on tag recommendation, to our knowledge, no previous work has summarized and organized them into a single survey article. In this article, we propose a taxonomy for tag recommendation methods, classifying them according to the target of the recommendations, their objectives, exploited data sources, and underlying techniques. Moreover, we provide a critical overview of these methods, pointing out their advantages and disadvantages. Finally, we describe the main open challenges related to the field, such as tag ambiguity, cold start, and evaluation issues.
    Date
    16.11.2017 13:30:22
  3. Social tagging in a linked data environment. Edited by Diane Rasmussen Pennington and Louise F. Spiteri. London, UK: Facet Publishing, 2018. 240 pp. £74.95 (paperback). (ISBN 9781783303380) (2019) 0.06 
    0.05950771 = product of:
  0.11901542 = sum of:
    0.11901542 = product of:
      0.23803084 = sum of:
        0.23803084 = weight(_text_:tagging in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23803084 = score(doc=101,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.79889125 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Social tagging, hashtags, and geotags are used across a variety of platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, WordPress, Instagram) in different countries and cultures. This book, representing researchers and practitioners across different information professions, explores how social tags can link content across a variety of environments. Most studies of social tagging have tended to focus on applications like library catalogs, blogs, and social bookmarking sites. This book, in setting out a theoretical background and the use of a series of case studies, explores the role of hashtags as a form of linked data?without the complex implementation of RDF and other Semantic Web technologies.
    RSWK
    Linked Data / Social Tagging
    Subject
    Linked Data / Social Tagging
    Theme
    Social tagging
  4. Syn, S.Y.; Spring, M.B.: Finding subject terms for classificatory metadata from user-generated social tags (2013) 0.05 
    0.048587844 = product of:
  0.09717569 = sum of:
    0.09717569 = product of:
      0.19435138 = sum of:
        0.19435138 = weight(_text_:tagging in 745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19435138 = score(doc=745,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.652292 = fieldWeight in 745, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=745)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    With the increasing popularity of social tagging systems, the potential for using social tags as a source of metadata is being explored. Social tagging systems can simplify the involvement of a large number of users and improve the metadata-generation process. Current research is exploring social tagging systems as a mechanism to allow nonprofessional catalogers to participate in metadata generation. Because social tags are not from controlled vocabularies, there are issues that have to be addressed in finding quality terms to represent the content of a resource. This research explores ways to obtain a set of tags representing the resource from the tags provided by users. Two metrics are introduced. Annotation Dominance (AD) is a measure of the extent to which a tag term is agreed to by users. Cross Resources Annotation Discrimination (CRAD) is a measure of a tag's potential to classify a collection. It is designed to remove tags that are used too broadly or narrowly. Using the proposed measurements, the research selects important tags (meta-terms) and removes meaningless ones (tag noise) from the tags provided by users. To evaluate the proposed approach to find classificatory metadata candidates, we rely on expert users' relevance judgments comparing suggested tag terms and expert metadata terms. The results suggest that processing of user tags using the two measurements successfully identifies the terms that represent the topic categories of web resource content. The suggested tag terms can be further examined in various usages as semantic metadata for the resources.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  5. Bundza, M.: ¬The choice is yours! : researchers assign subject metadata to their own materials in institutional repositories (2014) 0.03 
    0.03401149 = product of:
  0.06802298 = sum of:
    0.06802298 = product of:
      0.13604596 = sum of:
        0.13604596 = weight(_text_:tagging in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13604596 = score(doc=1968,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.4566044 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Theme
    Social tagging
  6. Chang, H.-C.; Iyer, I.: Trends in Twitter hashtag applications : design features for value-added dimensions to future library catalogues (2012) 0.03 
    0.029152704 = product of:
  0.05830541 = sum of:
    0.05830541 = product of:
      0.11661082 = sum of:
        0.11661082 = weight(_text_:tagging in 5574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11661082 = score(doc=5574,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.39137518 = fieldWeight in 5574, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5574)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The Twitter hashtag is a unique tagging format linking Tweets to user-defined concepts. The aim of the paper is to describe various applications of Twitter hashtags and to determine the functional characteristics of each application. Twitter hashtags can assist in archiving twitter content, provide different visual representations of tweets, and permit grouping by categories and facets. This study seeks to examine the trends in Twitter hashtag features and how these may be applied as enhancements for next-generation library catalogues. For this purpose, Taylor's value-added model is used as an analytical framework. The morphological box developed by Zwicky is used to synthesize functionalities of Twitter hashtag applications. And finally, included are recommendations for the design of hashtag-based value-added dimensions for future library catalogues.
  7. Chen, J.; Wang, D.; Xie, I.; Lu, Q.: Image annotation tactics : transitions, strategies and efficiency (2018) 0.02 
    0.019435138 = product of:
  0.038870275 = sum of:
    0.038870275 = product of:
      0.07774055 = sum of:
        0.07774055 = weight(_text_:tagging in 5046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07774055 = score(doc=5046,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.2609168 = fieldWeight in 5046, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5046)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Human interpretation of images during image annotation is complicated, but most existing interactive image annotation systems are generally operated based on social tagging, while ignoring that tags are insufficient to convey image semantics. Hence, it is critical to study the nature of image annotation behaviors and process. This study investigated annotation tactics, transitions, strategies and their efficiency during the image annotation process. A total of 90 participants were recruited to annotate nine pictures in three emotional dimensions with three interactive annotation methods. Data collected from annotation logs and verbal protocols were analyzed by applying both qualitative and quantitative methods. The findings of this study show that the cognitive process of human interpretation of images is rather complex, which reveals a probable bias in research involving image relevance feedback. Participants preferred applying scroll bar (Scr) and image comparison (Cim) tactics comparing with rating tactic (Val), and they did fewer fine tuning activities, which reflects the influence of perceptual level and users' cognitive load during image annotation. Annotation tactic transition analysis showed that Cim was more likely to be adopted at the beginning of each phase, and the most remarkable transition was from Cim to Scr. By applying sequence analysis, the authors found 10 most commonly used sequences representing four types of annotation strategies, including Single tactic strategy, Tactic combination strategy, Fix mode strategy and Shift mode strategy. Furthermore, two patterns, "quarter decreasing" and "transition cost," were identified based on time data, and both multiple tactics (e.g., the combination of Cim and Scr) and fine tuning activities were recognized as efficient tactic applications. Annotation patterns found in this study suggest more research needs to be done considering the need for multi-interactive methods and their influence. The findings of this study generated detailed and useful guidance for the interactive design in image annotation systems, including recommending efficient tactic applications in different phases, highlighting the most frequently applied tactics and transitions, and avoiding unnecessary transitions.
  8. Kopácsi, S. et al.: Development of a classification server to support metadata harmonization in a long term preservation system (2016) 0.02 
    0.017093996 = product of:
  0.03418799 = sum of:
    0.03418799 = product of:
      0.06837598 = sum of:
        0.06837598 = weight(_text_:22 in 3280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06837598 = score(doc=3280,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3280, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3280)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
  9. Hajra, A. et al.: Enriching scientific publications from LOD repositories through word embeddings approach (2016) 0.02 
    0.017093996 = product of:
  0.03418799 = sum of:
    0.03418799 = product of:
      0.06837598 = sum of:
        0.06837598 = weight(_text_:22 in 3281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06837598 = score(doc=3281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3281, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
  10. Mora-Mcginity, M. et al.: MusicWeb: music discovery with open linked semantic metadata (2016) 0.02 
    0.017093996 = product of:
  0.03418799 = sum of:
    0.03418799 = product of:
      0.06837598 = sum of:
        0.06837598 = weight(_text_:22 in 3282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06837598 = score(doc=3282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3282, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3282)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
  11. White, H.: Examining scientific vocabulary : mapping controlled vocabularies with free text keywords (2013) 0.01 
    0.013675196 = product of:
  0.027350392 = sum of:
    0.027350392 = product of:
      0.054700784 = sum of:
        0.054700784 = weight(_text_:22 in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054700784 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1953, 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=1953)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    29. 5.2015 19:09:22
  12. Alves dos Santos, E.; Mucheroni, M.L.: VIAF and OpenCitations : cooperative work as a strategy for information organization in the linked data era (2018) 0.01 
    0.013675196 = product of:
  0.027350392 = sum of:
    0.027350392 = product of:
      0.054700784 = sum of:
        0.054700784 = weight(_text_:22 in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054700784 = score(doc=4826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4826, 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=4826)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    18. 1.2019 19:13:22
  13. Ilik, V.; Storlien, J.; Olivarez, J.: Metadata makeover (2014) 0.01 
    0.011965796 = product of:
  0.023931593 = sum of:
    0.023931593 = product of:
      0.047863185 = sum of:
        0.047863185 = weight(_text_:22 in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047863185 = score(doc=2606,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2606, 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=2606)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  14. Metadata and semantics research : 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings (2016) 0.01 
    0.011965796 = product of:
  0.023931593 = sum of:
    0.023931593 = product of:
      0.047863185 = sum of:
        0.047863185 = weight(_text_:22 in 3283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047863185 = score(doc=3283,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3283, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3283)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  15. Pfister, E.; Wittwer, B.; Wolff, M.: Metadaten - Manuelle Datenpflege vs. Automatisieren : ein Praxisbericht zu Metadatenmanagement an der ETH-Bibliothek (2017) 0.01 
    0.011965796 = product of:
  0.023931593 = sum of:
    0.023931593 = product of:
      0.047863185 = sum of:
        0.047863185 = weight(_text_:22 in 5630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047863185 = score(doc=5630,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5630, 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=5630)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    B.I.T.online. 20(2017) H.1, S.22-25
  16. Baker, T.: Dublin Core Application Profiles : current approaches (2010) 0.01 
    0.010256397 = product of:
  0.020512793 = sum of:
    0.020512793 = product of:
      0.041025586 = sum of:
        0.041025586 = weight(_text_:22 in 3737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041025586 = score(doc=3737,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3737, 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=3737)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
  17. Wartburg, K. von; Sibille, C.; Aliverti, C.: Metadata collaboration between the Swiss National Library and research institutions in the field of Swiss historiography (2019) 0.01 
    0.010256397 = product of:
  0.020512793 = sum of:
    0.020512793 = product of:
      0.041025586 = sum of:
        0.041025586 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041025586 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    30. 5.2019 19:22:49
  18. Cho, H.; Donovan, A.; Lee, J.H.: Art in an algorithm : a taxonomy for describing video game visual styles (2018) 0.01 
    0.008546998 = product of:
  0.017093996 = sum of:
    0.017093996 = product of:
      0.03418799 = sum of:
        0.03418799 = weight(_text_:22 in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03418799 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4218, 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=4218)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The discovery and retrieval of video games in library and information systems is, by and large, dependent on a limited set of descriptive metadata. Noticeably missing from this metadata are classifications of visual style-despite the overwhelmingly visual nature of most video games and the interest in visual style among video game users. One explanation for this paucity is the difficulty in eliciting consistent judgements about visual style, likely due to subjective interpretations of terminology and a lack of demonstrable testing for coinciding judgements. This study presents a taxonomy of video game visual styles constructed from the findings of a 22-participant cataloging user study of visual styles. A detailed description of the study, and its value and shortcomings, are presented along with reflections about the challenges of cultivating consensus about visual style in video games. The high degree of overall agreement in the user study demonstrates the potential value of a descriptor like visual style and the use of a cataloging study in developing visual style taxonomies. The resulting visual style taxonomy, the methods and analysis described herein may help improve the organization and retrieval of video games and possibly other visual materials like graphic designs, illustrations, and animations.
  19. Roy, W.; Gray, C.: Preparing existing metadata for repository batch import : a recipe for a fickle food (2018) 0.01 
    0.008546998 = product of:
  0.017093996 = sum of:
    0.017093996 = product of:
      0.03418799 = sum of:
        0.03418799 = weight(_text_:22 in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03418799 = score(doc=4550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4550, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4550)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    10.11.2018 16:27:22
  20. Willis, C.; Greenberg, J.; White, H.: Analysis and synthesis of metadata goals for scientific data (2012) 0.01 
    0.006837598 = product of:
  0.013675196 = sum of:
    0.013675196 = product of:
      0.027350392 = sum of:
        0.027350392 = weight(_text_:22 in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027350392 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = 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.

Authors

Languages

  • e 19
  • d 1

Types

Themes

Subjects

Classifications