Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.003425413 = product of:
  0.022836085 = sum of:
    0.007813511 = weight(_text_:und in 1760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007813511 = score(doc=1760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06381599 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 1760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1760)
    0.007813511 = weight(_text_:und in 1760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007813511 = score(doc=1760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06381599 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 1760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1760)
    0.0072090626 = weight(_text_:in in 1760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0072090626 = score(doc=1760,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 1760, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1760)
  0.15 = coord(3/20)

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.

Source

Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 50(2003) H.4, S.182-187

0.00156411 = product of:
  0.0156411 = sum of:
    0.009524008 = weight(_text_:der in 6108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009524008 = score(doc=6108,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06431698 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.14807922 = fieldWeight in 6108, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6108)
    0.006117093 = weight(_text_:in in 6108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006117093 = score(doc=6108,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 6108, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6108)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

Libraries have a large stake in search protocols because library systems are diverse yet library users need to access multiple sites without learning the search syntax of each site. This paper reviews and compares the relative advantages of several of the newest search protocols and query languages: Search via URL (SRU), OpenSearch, Contextual Query Language (CQL), and XQuery. The models for SRU and OpenSearch operations are described in order to explain differences in functionality - keyword search and simple data record return for OpenSearch and richer search with multiple format data return for SRU. The advantages of CQL are described along with possible complementary uses of the highly detailed and complex XQuery being developed for XML.

Content

Vortrag anlässlich der 72ND IFLA General Conference and Council, 20-24 August 2006, Seoul, Korea

0.001523489 = product of:
  0.01523489 = sum of:
    0.003531705 = weight(_text_:in in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003531705 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 3841, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3841)
    0.011703186 = product of:
      0.023406371 = sum of:
        0.023406371 = weight(_text_:22 in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023406371 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

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

7.802124E-4 = product of:
  0.015604248 = sum of:
    0.015604248 = product of:
      0.031208497 = sum of:
        0.031208497 = weight(_text_:22 in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031208497 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = 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)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.82-88

4.70894E-4 = product of:
  0.00941788 = sum of:
    0.00941788 = weight(_text_:in in 4481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00941788 = score(doc=4481,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 4481, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4481)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

2.9135082E-4 = product of:
  0.005827016 = sum of:
    0.005827016 = weight(_text_:in in 4361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005827016 = score(doc=4361,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 4361, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4361)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Abstract

At the IFLA conference in Glasgow, three years ago, the Information Technology Section organized a workshop on metadata. At that workshop MARCXML was presented, along with plans and expectations for its use. This paper is an update to that report. It reviews the development of an XML schema for MARC 21 and the MARCXML tool kit of transformations. The close relationship of MARCXML to the recent ISO standards work associated with MARC in XML is described. Sketches of interesting applications follow with uses that range from MARCXML as a switching format to a maintenance tool to a record communication format for new XML-based protocols.