Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01797023 = product of:
  0.07188092 = sum of:
    0.04910217 = weight(_text_:libraries in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04910217 = score(doc=101,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3771894 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
    0.022778753 = product of:
      0.045557506 = sum of:
        0.045557506 = weight(_text_:22 in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045557506 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Libraries pay considerable attention to the creation, preservation, and transformation of descriptive metadata in both MARC and non-MARC formats. Little evidence suggests that they devote as much time, energy, and financial resources to the ongoing maintenance of non-MARC metadata, especially with regard to updating and editing existing descriptive content, as they do to maintenance of such information in the MARC-based online public access catalog. In this paper, the authors introduce a model, derived loosely from J. A. Zachman's framework for information systems architecture, with which libraries can identify and inventory components of catalog or metadata maintenance and plan interdepartmental, even interinstitutional, workflows. The model draws on the notion that the expertise and skills that have long been the hallmark for the maintenance of libraries' catalog data can and should be parlayed towards metadata maintenance in a broader set of information delivery systems.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22
19. 6.2010 19:22:28

0.016302295 = product of:
  0.06520918 = sum of:
    0.04910217 = weight(_text_:libraries in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04910217 = score(doc=4748,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3771894 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
    0.01610701 = product of:
      0.03221402 = sum of:
        0.03221402 = weight(_text_:22 in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03221402 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4748, 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=4748)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Metadata and information technology staff in libraries that are building digital collections typically extract and manipulate MARC metadata sets to provide access to digital content via non-MARC schemes. Metadata processing in these libraries involves defining the relationships between metadata schemes, moving metadata between schemes, and coordinating the intellectual activity and physical resources required to create and manipulate metadata. Actively managing the non-MARC metadata resources used to build digital collections is something most of these libraries have only begun to do. This article proposes strategies for managing MARC metadata repurposing efforts as the first step in a coordinated approach to library metadata management. Guided by lessons learned from Cornell University library mapping and transformation activities, the authors apply the literature of data resource management to library metadata management and propose a model for managing MARC metadata repurposing processes through the implementation of a metadata management design.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.144-152

0.004650397 = product of:
  0.037203178 = sum of:
    0.037203178 = product of:
      0.074406356 = sum of:
        0.074406356 = weight(_text_:area in 5433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074406356 = score(doc=5433,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.38107216 = fieldWeight in 5433, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5433)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Barbara B. Tillett discusses her career, including her roles as Director, Integrated Library System Program Office, and Chief, Cataloging Policy and Support Office, at the Library of Congress, and her work as a researcher in the area of bibliographic relationships. Topics include the following: current ILS functionality, benefits, and losses; LC's activities in digital futures planning; development of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records; her role in the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR, her part in writing proposals and responses to proposals sent to JSC, and JSC initiatives of the past few years; her work in IFLA and other international organizations and projects; the possible development of a connection between existing international authority files; and other aspects of the emerging internationalization in library catalogs.

0.0041342513 = product of:
  0.03307401 = sum of:
    0.03307401 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03307401 = score(doc=2348,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.25406548 = fieldWeight in 2348, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2348)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Information technology and libraries. 10(1991), S.201-211