Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,201 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».