MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1482518979

Using the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting

2008· article· en· W1482518979 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ian Dew

Notice bibliographique

RevuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueLibrary Science and Information Systems
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMetadataContext (archaeology)Protocol (science)World Wide WebComputer scienceService (business)Library scienceBusinessGeography
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Cole, Timothy W. and Muriel Foulonneau. Using the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2007. 208 pp. 45.00 USD. ISBN-10: 1-59158-280-6. ISBN-13: 978-1-59158-280-9. ∞ Using the Open Archive Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting is much more than its title suggests. It is an impressively substantial work on the central mechanism of scholarly communication. It abounds with extensive insights and information, applicable to institutional archives, discipline-based aggregators and other new services. The general structure of the book progresses in a helpful manner from general to specific and from theory to the basics of designing and implementing services using the Open Archive Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH). The work is divided into three major sections: introduction and context; protocol implementation; and creating and using sharable metadata. The last two sections correspond largely to the roles of the OAI data provider and OAI service provider respectively. In the introduction the authors advise the reader against deadly bloat as the killer of workable services. They credit the success of the protocol so far to the refusal to permit that condition, with the result that every effort has been made to keep the protocol simple and robust and thereby lower the technical barriers to its adoption. Success is measured by the rapid adoption of the protocol by library, archive, and museum communities. They also warn against de-contextualizing collections. The context section includes a long history of the initiative through practice for the data and service provider to the end 2006. The authors allude to a predecessor system in the field of physics as having a strong and robust history of preprints in print format. A very positive feature of the work is a brief section on Building Community, which shows that marketing and developing relationships are recognized even in this mostly technical work as necessary steps in building relevant and technically superior services. From the perspective of a technical reader, the book is very well constructed. For the non-technical reader the terminology used by the authors, is a big problem. Terminology at the first occurrence is italicized and defined. Thereafter, it appears as a term in plain text or as an acronym. The authors should not be blamed for the rapidly evolving technology and changing terminology in this field; however, the insertion of a glossary or a table of equivalents would have saved the reader some frustration when confirming the meaning of such terms. One rather helpful convention for displaying OAI and XML coding is the use of Courier font within the text. The authors are rigorous in their use of internationally recognized acronyms, like OAI, and EAD, but unfortunately they also include a shower of lesser known nationally and regionally significant acronyms like LANL or CWDA-Lite. Standards are quoted mostly in U.S. terms, such as NISO equivalents and Dublin Core (DC), without it being made clear that the standard in this case is for the United States. Instead of revealing the ISO connection with DC early on, it is done almost as an afterthought toward the end of the work. Had the authors made it clear that DCMES (Dublin Core Metadata Element Set) is one and the same as ISO 15386, a cloud of terminology surrounding Dublin Core, such as DC, DCMI, and DCMES could have been resolved for international readers. Likewise, that ISO 23950 Information Retrieval: Application Service Definition and Protocol Specification is NISO Z39.50 by any other name, since they are technically identical with minor editorial differences. Similarly use of ISO 2079, a data transmission standard, which librarians have adopted worldwide, could supplant MARC or variants, such as, MARC21. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Communication savante
Catégories consensuellesCommunication savante
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,947
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,000
Communication savante0,0050,201
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,452
Tête enseignante GPT0,443
Écart entre enseignants0,009 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and ResearchMême sujetLibrary Science and Information SystemsTravaux en français237 207