Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"McCallum, S.H."
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. McCallum, S.H.: Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC): 1975-2007 (2009) 0.04
    0.04125603 = product of:
      0.08251206 = sum of:
        0.08251206 = sum of:
          0.04560902 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04560902 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 3841, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3841)
          0.03690304 = weight(_text_:22 in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03690304 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3841, 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=3841)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This entry describes the development of the MARC Communications format. After a brief overview of the initial 10 years it describes the succeeding phases of development up to the present. This takes the reader through the expansion of the format for all types of bibliographic data and for a multiple character scripts. At the same time a large business community was developing that offered products based on the format to the library community. The introduction of the Internet in the 1990s and the Web technology brought new opportunities and challenges and the format was adapted to this new environment. There has been a great deal of international adoption of the format that has continued into the 2000s. More recently new syntaxes for MARC 21 and models are being explored.
    Date
    27. 8.2011 14:22:38
  2. McCallum, S.H.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) (2004) 0.01
    0.012301013 = product of:
      0.024602026 = sum of:
        0.024602026 = product of:
          0.04920405 = sum of:
            0.04920405 = weight(_text_:22 in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04920405 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.82-88
  3. McCallum, S.H.: Preservation metadata standards for digital resources : what we have and what we need (2005) 0.01
    0.011402255 = product of:
      0.02280451 = sum of:
        0.02280451 = product of:
          0.04560902 = sum of:
            0.04560902 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04560902 = score(doc=4353,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = queryNorm
                0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 4353, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4353)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Series
    150 SI - ICABS (IFLA/CDNL Alliance for Bibliographic Standards) ; 060-E
  4. McCallum, S.H.: Library of Congress metadata landscape (2003) 0.01
    0.00950188 = product of:
      0.01900376 = sum of:
        0.01900376 = product of:
          0.03800752 = sum of:
            0.03800752 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03800752 = score(doc=1760,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = queryNorm
                0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 1760, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1760)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The Library of Congress (LC) has many of the same challenges as other libraries, especially large ones. LC has many different types of resources - books, journals, maps, music, manuscripts, audio, moving image, still image, artifacts, electronic - with large collections of each. Different levels of access are needed for this material: for some, collection level bibliographic description is adequate; for many, item level access is adequate; but for others, such as sound recordings, analytic, or sub unit access is highly desirable.The sizes of the LC collections are a major challenge - over 125 million non-electronic and over 3 million electronic items (and growing rapidly). And finally, electronic resources are presenting us with new issues - from metadata to preservation to storage to linking techniques. LC has tried to approach these challenges from a service perspective. Access must be successful for the end user, which mandates as much coherence and consistency in the metadata as possible and access systems that are easy to use. This paper focuses an the Library of Congress' perspective an metadata in the following three areas: (1) descriptive metadata in our current operations, (2) pathways that are developing that will support possible evolution in the future, and (3) broader metadata needs with digital material. The discussion is from a metadata element set and format point of view, not a cataloging data and cataloging rules view. Most acronyms used in this paper are expanded in an Appendix.