Inligtingkunde/Information Science INL 220 HEREKSAMEN/RE-EXAMINATION Eksaminatore/Examiners: NOVEMBER 2009

Transcription

1 Outeursreg voorbehou Copyright reserved UNIVERSITEIT VAN PRETORIA/UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA Departement Inligtingkunde/Department of Information Science Inligtingkunde/Information Science INL 220 HEREKSAMEN/RE-EXAMINATION Eksaminatore/Examiners: NOVEMBER 2009 Intern/Internal: Me/Ms JE Thompson PUNTE/MARKS: 75 Me/Ms E Koster Ekstern/External: Prof TJD Bothma TYD/TIME: 120 min Die vraestel bestaan uit twee afdelings. Afdeling A word op hierdie vraestel beantwoord, en Afdeling B in die antwoordboek wat voorsien word. The paper consists of two sections. Section A must be answered on this question paper, and Section B in the answer book supplied. VAN/SURNAME: VOORNAME/FIRST NAMES: HANDTEKENING/SIGNATURE: Tydens eksamenperiode / During examination period Na eksamen / After examination Telefoonnommer waar u bereik kan word / Telephone number where you can be reached Registrasienommer Registration number Graadkursus Degree course Vak Subject Datum van eksamen Date of examination Voltydse of Tuks na 5 -student Full-time or Tuks after 5 student Paraaf vir eksaminatore / Initials for examiners Interne/Internal Eksterne/External Nommer van vraag Number of question Totaal Total Punte van eksaminatore Marks awarded by examiners Int. Int. Eks. Ext.

2 Afdeling A/Section A: (16 punte/16 marks) Die inligting oor die Venus de Milo hieronder moet gebruik word om Vrae 1-4 in Afdeling A te beantwoord. Let asseblief op dat die CCO en VRA Core 4 elemente aangeheg is as Appendikse A en B agter aan hierdie vraestel. The information on the Venus de Milo below should be used to answer Questions 1-4 in Section A. Please note that the CCO and VRA Core 4 elements are attached as Appendices A and B at the back of this question paper. The Aphrodite of Milos (Greek: "Αφροδίτη της Μήλου"), better known as the Venus de Milo, is an ancient Greek statue and one of the most famous works of ancient Greek sculpture. Created at some time between 130 and 100 BC, it is believed to depict Aphrodite (called Venus by the Romans), the Greek goddess of love and beauty. It is a marble sculpture, slightly larger than life size at 203 cm (6.7 ft) high. Its arms and original plinth have been lost. This contributed to the mystery of the sculpture. From an inscription that was on its plinth, it is thought to be the work of Alexandros of Antioch; it was earlier mistakenly attributed to the master sculptor Praxiteles. It is at present on display at the Louvre Museum in Paris. The Venus de Milo was discovered by a peasant named Yorgos Kentrotas in 1820, inside a buried niche within the ancient city ruins of Milos, on the Aegean island of Milos. The statue was found in two main pieces (the upper torso and the lower draped legs) along with several herms (pillars topped with heads), fragments of the upper left arm and left hand holding an apple, and an inscribed plinth. The controversial plinth was initially found to fit perfectly as part of the statue, but after it was translated and dated, the embarrassed experts who had publicized the statue as a possible original work by the artist Praxiteles dismissed it as another later addition to the statue. The inscription read: "...Alexandros son of Menides, citizen of Antioch on the Maeander made this statue...". The inscribed plinth would have moved the dating of the statue from the Classical period to the Hellenistic period because of the style of lettering and the mention of the ancient city of Antioch on the Maeander, which did not exist at the time Praxiteles lived. The Hellenistic Age was at that time considered a period of decline for Greek art. The plinth mysteriously disappeared shortly before the statue was presented to King Louis XVIII in 1821 and only survives in two drawings and an early description. The king eventually presented the statue to the Louvre museum in Paris, where it still stands on public display. *Information from

3 Die volgende vrae (1-4) het betrekking op die Venus de Milo as objek wat deur die gespesifiseerde metadata skemas verteenwoordig word. The following questions (1-4) relate to the Venus de Milo as an object being represented using the specified metadata schemes. 1. Hierdie vraag handel oor die Dublin Core Onderwerp element. (8) 1. This question relates to the Dublin Core Subject element. (8) 1.1. Gee die toepaslike inligting (met betrekking op die Venus de Milo ) vir die Dublin Core Onderwerp element. (4) 1.1. Give the applicable information (relating to the Venus de Milo ) for the Dublin Core Subject element. (4) 1.2. Noem een CCO element (behalwe die Onderwerp element) wat gelykstaande is aan die Dublin Core Onderwerp element. (1) 1.2. Name one CCO element (other than the Subject element) that is equivalent to the Dublin Core Subject element. (1)

4 1.3. Gee die toepaslike inligting (met betrekking tot die Venus de Milo ) vir CCO element in 1.2. (1) 1.3. Give the applicable information (relating to the Venus de Milo ) for the CCO element given in 1.2. (1) 1.4. Noem een VRA Core 4.0 element (behalwe die VRA Onderwerp element) wat gelykstaande is aan die Dublin Core Subject element.(1) 1.4. Name one VRA Core 4.0 element (other than the VRA Subject element) that is equivalent to the Dublin Core Subject element. (1) 1.5. Gee die toepaslike inligting (met betrekking tot die Venus de Milo ) vir die VRA Core 4.0 element in 1.4. (1) 1.5. Give the applicable information (relating to the Venus de Milo ) for the VRA Core 4.0 element given in 1.4. (1) 2. Hierdie vraag handel oor die Dublin Core Datum element. (1) 2. This question relates to the Dublin Core Date element. (1) 2.1. Gee die toepaslike inligting (met betrekking tot die Venus de Milo ) vir die Dublin Core Datum element. (1) 2.1. Give the applicable information (relating to the Venus de Milo ) for the Dublin Core Date element. (1)

5 3. Hierdie vraag handel oor die Dublin Core Formaat element. (4) 3. This question relates to the Dublin Core Format element. (4) 3.1. Noem twee CCO elemente wat gelykstaande is aan die Dublin Core Formaat element. (2) 3.1. Name two CCO elements that are equivalent to the Dublin Core Format element. (2) 3.2. Gee die toepaslike inligting (met betrekking tot die Venus de Milo ) vir die CCO elemente in 3.1. (2) 3.2. Give the applicable information (relating to the Venus de Milo ) for the CCO elements specified in 3.1. (2)

6 4. Hierdie vraag handel oor die Dublin Core Beskrywing element. (3) 4. This question relates to the Dublin Core Description element. (3) 4.1. Noem een VRA element (behalwe die VRA Beskrywing element)wat gelykstaande is aan die Dublin Core Beskrywing element. (1) 4.1. Name one VRA element (other than the VRA Description element) that is equivalent to the Dublin Core Description element. (1) 4.2. Gee die toepaslike inligting (met betrekking tot die Venus de Milo ) vir die CCO element gegee in 4.1. (2) 4.2. Give the applicable information (relating to the Venus de Milo ) for the CCO element specified in 4.1. (2)

7 Afdeling B/ Section B: 5. Analiseer die volgende ekserpt in terme van die tipes en funksies van ekserpte. (10) Analyse the following abstract in terms of types and the functions of abstracts. Title: The influence of crowd noise and experience upon refereeing decisions in football Authors: A. M. Nevill a, N. J. Balmer b and A. Mark Williams b a School of Sport, Performing Arts and Leisure, University of Wolverhampton, Walsall Campus, Gorway Road, Walsall WS1 3BD, UK b Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Trueman Building, Webster Street, Liverpool L3 2ET, UK Source: Psychology of Sport and Exercise Volume 3, Issue 4, October 2002, Pages Abstract Objective. The existence of the home advantage in sport is well known. There is growing evidence that crowd noise plays a crucial part in this phenomenon. Consequently, a quantitative study was undertaken to examine influence of crowd noise upon refereeing decisions in association football (soccer). The association between years of experience and any imbalance in refereeing decisions was also addressed. Methods. To investigate whether the presence or absence of crowd noise might influence qualified referees when assessing various tackles/challenges recorded on videotape. Binary logistic regression was used to assess the effect of crowd noise and years of experience on referees' decisions. Results. The presence of crowd noise had a dramatic effect on the decisions made by referees. Those viewing the challenges with background crowd noise were more uncertain in their decision making and awarded significantly fewer fouls (15.5%) against the home team, compared with those watching in silence. Conclusions. The noise of the crowd influenced referees' decisions to favour the home team. It is suggested that referees' decisions are influenced by the salient nature of crowd noise, the potential use of heuristic strategies, and the 7

8 need to avoid potential crowd displeasure by making a decision in favour of the home team. (201 words) Author Keywords: Referees; Decision making; Home advantage 6. Defineer metadata. Bespreek die verskillende tiepes metadata en illustreer jou antwoord met toepaslike voorbeelde. (10) Define metadata. Discuss the different types of metadata, giving an appropriate example of each. 7. Wat is die kwessies wat in woordeskatbeheer aangespreek moet word? Bespreek elkeen en verskaf toepaslike voorbeelde. (10) What are the issues that need to be addressed in vocabulary control? Discuss each one and provide suitable examples. 8. Verduidelik Primêre and Sekondêre teorie deur na voorbeelde te verwys. (6) Explain Primary and Secondary Theory by referring to examples. 9. Bespreek Interoperability met verwysing na opmerktale and die Semantiese Web. (8) Discuss Interoperability with relation to markup languages and the Semantic Web. 10. Bespreek die vier tipes aboutness (outeur, indekseerder, gebruiker en versoek) in terme van die intellektuele inhoud van n dokument. (15) Discuss the four types of aboutness (author, indexer, user and request) in terms of the intellectual content of a document. TOTAAL/TOTAL [75] 8

9 Appendix A CCO categories and elements Object naming Work type Title Creator information Creator Creator role Physical characteristics Measurements Materials and techniques State and edition Additional physical characteristics Stylistic, cultural and chronological information Style Culture Date Location and geography Current location Creation location Discovery location Former location Subject Class Description Description Other descriptive notes View information View description View type View subject View date 9

10 Appendix B VRA Core 4.0 elements work, collection, or image (id) agent culturalcontext date description inscription location material measurements relation rights source stateedition styleperiod subject technique textref title worktype 10