Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0029000505 = product of:
  0.005800101 = sum of:
    0.005800101 = product of:
      0.011600202 = sum of:
        0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 5860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011600202 = score(doc=5860,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 5860, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5860)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

XOBIS is an XML schema which reorganizes bibliographic and authority data elements into a single, integrated structure. It explores balancing valuable traditions with new technologies to create a potential foundation for future access to information in a distributed digital environment. It also attempts to determine a middle path between the complexity of MARC and the oversimplification of the Dublin Core. XOBIS represents an experimental effort focused on addressing metadata as the critical bridge between content and sophisticated access-all three increasingly focused on XML in a digital environment.

Type

a

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=295,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 295, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=295)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many health science libraries are now in the planning stages for acquisition of local online catalogs and circulation systems. Whether turn-key or in-house, in most cases such systems will be based on machine-readable records, or archive tapes, produced as a by-product of automated cataloging. Because most libraries originally used these systems as a more efficient means to produce catalog cards, the usefulness of the records is questioned. A review of selected aspects of cataloging via OCLC reveals several areas in which local card production priorities have made the resultant archive tapes more difficult and costly to use as a machine-readable database. Some specific suggestions are given for altering input procedures to improve the usefulness of archive tapes. In conclusion, it is recommended that librarians re-examine local input procedures in light of cost-effective production of archive lapes to produce consistent bibliographic entries for local online catalogs, resource sharing projects and management information systems.

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 5380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=5380,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 5380, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5380)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper surveys four aspects of Bibliographic Management at Lane Medical Library, Stanford University Medical Center. First, a capsulized overview of the current scope and organization provides context. Second, counts of selected form/genre headings statistically present the extent and nature of databases maintained and illustrate our emphasis on form/genre. Third, descriptive summaries of selected policies and practices currently in effect illustrate how staff are attempting to improve bibliographic access and prepare for future retrieval systems. Because many of the positions taken may be controversial, discussion includes how the impact of differences is minimized in external systems. Last, selected new and/or experimental initiatives explore near future projects to further extend and enhance bibliographic control. The potential of these options derives from a more flexible integration and deployment of traditional and digital library resources focused on domain - specific user needs. A conjectural conclusion identifies the need for radical changes in the scope and structure of bibliographic control necessary to utilize rapidly evolving technologies effectively. Lane's ongoing XML MARC experiment suggests the feasibility and necessity of replacing MARC with a less arcane scheme and posits the concept of organic bibliography as the basis for a more robust bibliographic infrastructure.

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 1438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=1438,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1438, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1438)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The authors, hoping to stimulate interest in XML (Extensible Markup Language) and explain its value to the library community, offer a fine introduction to the topic. The opening chapter defines XML as "a system for electronically tagging or marking up documents in order to label, organize, and categorize their content" and then goes on to describe its origins and fundamental building blocks. Subsequent chapters address related technologies, schema development, XML-based tools, and current and future library uses. The authors argue persuasively for increased XML use, emphasizing its advantages over HTML in flexibility, interoperability, extensibility, and internationalization. Information is detailed, deftly written, and supported by numerous examples. Readers without a technological bent may find the text daunting, but their perseverance will be richly rewarded. Particularly recommended for webmasters and those working in library information systems and technical services.

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=1467,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

XML (eXtensible Markup Language) is fast gaining favor as the universal format for data and document exchange -- in effect becoming the lingua franca of the Information Age. Currently, "library information" is at a particular disadvantage on the rapidly evolving World Wide Web. Why? Despite libraries'explorations of web catalogs, scanning projects, digital data repositories, and creation of web pages galore, there remains a digital divide. The core of libraries' data troves are stored in proprietary formats of integrated library systems (ILS) and in the complex and arcane MARC formats -- both restricted chiefly to the province of technical services and systems librarians. Even they are hard-pressed to extract and integrate this wealth of data with resources from outside this rarefied environment. Segregation of library information underlies many difficulties: producing standard bibliographic citations from MARC data, automatically creating new materials lists (including new web resources) on a particular topic, exchanging data with our vendors, and even migrating from one ILS to another. Why do we continue to hobble our potential by embracing these self-imposed limitations? Most ILSs began in libraries, which soon recognized the pitfalls of do-it-yourself solutions. Thus, we wisely anticipated the necessity for standards. However, with the advent of the web, we soon found "our" collections and a flood of new resources appearing in digital format on opposite sides of the divide. If we do not act quickly to integrate library resources with mainstream web resources, we are in grave danger of becoming marginalized