Hendrik flash talk metadata creation 2010 05-19

375 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
375
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Given the significant disparity between the two approaches, one is tempted to conclude that only a combination of both concepts is suitable for the needs of digital libraries. A flexible and detailed indexing is required to make all available information accessible for the user. Additional appropriate control methods are necessary to ensure the highest possible indexing quality. Overall a digital library has the responsibly to provide at least the same quality as we expected from traditional libraries.
  • Hendrik flash talk metadata creation 2010 05-19

    1. 1. 1. Manual Contextual Indexing – Overview <ul><li>Objective: construct a surrogate of a content subject by assigning index terms like subject headings to a information resource </li></ul><ul><li>Indexing Process (according to Lancaster) : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>conceptual analysis deciding on what a resource is about = identify the content subjects  depends on the needs and interests of the indexing person </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>translation finding an appropriate set of index terms that represents the results of the conceptual analysis  users have to predict the assigned index terms </li></ul></ul>
    2. 2. 2. Manual Contextual Indexing – Expert Indexing <ul><li>Performed by domain experts </li></ul><ul><li>Controlled Vocabulary (to avoid inconsistent representations of subjects) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Requirement: </li></ul><ul><li>1.) Must choose the index terms which fits best to represent the content subject (C. A. Cutter) </li></ul><ul><li>2.) Must adopt a neutral stand between the reader and the document  emphasis to what the author intended to describe rather than to his own view </li></ul>Pro: clear and unambiguous translation of the content subjects Contra: time-consuming task + requires vast background knowledge
    3. 3. 3. Manual Contextual Indexing – Social Tagging <ul><li>renaissance of manual subject indexing in the Internet </li></ul><ul><li> social tagging, collaborative tagging, social indexing or folksonomy </li></ul><ul><li>indexing is conducted collaboratively by the end users  “simply creates and applies tags on the fly” </li></ul><ul><li>most important feature: social aspect: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>different linguistic and cultural backgrounds of the users </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>individual interpretations of the resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> danger of inconsistencies, because tags allow contradictions to exist </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> “ there are no facts, only interpretations” (Friedrich Nietzsche) </li></ul></ul>Pro: flexible and detailed indexing of digital resources Contra: unsystematic and problems “Meta Noise”
    4. 4. 4. Manual Contextual Indexing – Discussion <ul><li>Similarities between Expert Indexing and Social Tagging: </li></ul><ul><li>index terms are assigned manually to the information resource as a surrogate for the content subject </li></ul><ul><li>semantic interpretation of an index association “document contains information about a subject specified by the index term”  no other relation are possible by standard </li></ul>
    5. 5. 5. Manual Contextual Indexing – Discussion <ul><li>Dissimilarities between Expert Indexing and Social Tagging: </li></ul><ul><li>controlled vocabulary vs. natural language indexing  impossible to predict all valid interpretation (engineer, medical) </li></ul><ul><li>level of detail </li></ul><ul><li> DMG-Lib contains 1000 images and technical drawings, so every content portion has to be indexed </li></ul><ul><li>indexing quality of the two approaches </li></ul><ul><ul><li>quality is critical for digital libraries </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>typically no high numbers of users in digital libraries </li></ul></ul>Only a combination of both concept is suitable for digital repositories (detailed and flexible indexing in the highest possible quality)

    ×