Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

Kurth, M.; Ruddy, D.; Rupp, N.: Repurposing MARC metadata : using digital project experience to develop a metadata management design (2004) 0.04
```
0.039634123 = product of:
  0.11890237 = sum of:
    0.11890237 = sum of:
      0.080192536 = weight(_text_:management in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.080192536 = score(doc=4748,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.16050325 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047618426 = queryNorm
          0.49963182 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
      0.038709838 = weight(_text_:22 in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038709838 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047618426 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
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

MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications (2004) 0.02

0.017204374 = product of:
  0.05161312 = sum of:
    0.05161312 = product of:
      0.10322624 = sum of:
        0.10322624 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10322624 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source: Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications (2004) 0.02

0.015053826 = product of:
  0.04516148 = sum of:
    0.04516148 = product of:
      0.09032296 = sum of:
        0.09032296 = weight(_text_:22 in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09032296 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7196, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7196)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source: Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications part 2 (2004) 0.02

0.015053826 = product of:
  0.04516148 = sum of:
    0.04516148 = product of:
      0.09032296 = sum of:
        0.09032296 = weight(_text_:22 in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09032296 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2841, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2841)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source: Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2

Caplan, P.; Guenther, R.: Metadata for Internet resources : the Dublin Core Metadata Elements Set and its mapping to USMARC (1996) 0.01

0.012165329 = product of:
  0.036495987 = sum of:
    0.036495987 = product of:
      0.072991975 = sum of:
        0.072991975 = weight(_text_:22 in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072991975 = score(doc=2408,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2408, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2408)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date: 13. 1.2007 18:31:22
Source: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.43-58

Tennant, R.: ¬A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty-first century (2004) 0.01

0.012165329 = product of:
  0.036495987 = sum of:
    0.036495987 = product of:
      0.072991975 = sum of:
        0.072991975 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072991975 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date: 9.12.2005 19:22:38
Source: Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.175-181

Proffitt, M.: Pulling it all together : use of METS in RLG cultural materials service (2004) 0.01

0.008602187 = product of:
  0.02580656 = sum of:
    0.02580656 = product of:
      0.05161312 = sum of:
        0.05161312 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05161312 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 767, 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=767)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source: Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.65-68

McCallum, S.H.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) (2004) 0.01

0.008602187 = product of:
  0.02580656 = sum of:
    0.02580656 = product of:
      0.05161312 = sum of:
        0.05161312 = weight(_text_:22 in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05161312 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

Cundiff, M.V.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) (2004) 0.01

0.008602187 = product of:
  0.02580656 = sum of:
    0.02580656 = product of:
      0.05161312 = sum of:
        0.05161312 = weight(_text_:22 in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05161312 = score(doc=2834,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2834, 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=2834)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source: Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.52-64

El-Sherbini, M.: Metadata and the future of cataloging (2001) 0.01

0.008602187 = product of:
  0.02580656 = sum of:
    0.02580656 = product of:
      0.05161312 = sum of:
        0.05161312 = weight(_text_:22 in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05161312 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 751, 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=751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date: 23. 1.2007 11:22:30

METS: an overview & tutorial : Metadata Encoding & Transmission Standard (METS) (2001) 0.01
```
0.008453036 = product of:
  0.025359105 = sum of:
    0.025359105 = product of:
      0.05071821 = sum of:
        0.05071821 = weight(_text_:management in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05071821 = score(doc=1323,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16050325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.31599492 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
Abstract

Maintaining a library of digital objects of necessaryy requires maintaining metadata about those objects. The metadata necessary for successful management and use of digital objeets is both more extensive than and different from the metadata used for managing collections of printed works and other physical materials. While a library may record descriptive metadata regarding a book in its collection, the book will not dissolve into a series of unconnected pages if the library fails to record structural metadata regarding the book's organization, nor will scholars be unable to evaluate the book's worth if the library fails to note that the book was produced using a Ryobi offset press. The Same cannot be said for a digital version of the saure book. Without structural metadata, the page image or text files comprising the digital work are of little use, and without technical metadata regarding the digitization process, scholars may be unsure of how accurate a reflection of the original the digital version provides. For internal management purposes, a library must have access to appropriate technical metadata in order to periodically refresh and migrate the data, ensuring the durability of valuable resources.

Guenther, R.S.: Using the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) for resource description : guidelines and applications (2004) 0.01

0.007526913 = product of:
  0.02258074 = sum of:
    0.02258074 = product of:
      0.04516148 = sum of:
        0.04516148 = weight(_text_:22 in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04516148 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2837, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source: Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.89-98

Carvalho, J.R. de; Cordeiro, M.I.; Lopes, A.; Vieira, M.: Meta-information about MARC : an XML framework for validation, explanation and help systems (2004) 0.01

0.007526913 = product of:
  0.02258074 = sum of:
    0.02258074 = product of:
      0.04516148 = sum of:
        0.04516148 = weight(_text_:22 in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04516148 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source: Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.131-137

Eden, B.L.: Metadata and librarianship : will MARC survive? (2004) 0.01

0.007526913 = product of:
  0.02258074 = sum of:
    0.02258074 = product of:
      0.04516148 = sum of:
        0.04516148 = weight(_text_:22 in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04516148 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4750, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4750)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source: Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.6-7

Keith, C.: Using XSLT to manipulate MARC metadata (2004) 0.01

0.00645164 = product of:
  0.019354919 = sum of:
    0.019354919 = product of:
      0.038709838 = sum of:
        0.038709838 = weight(_text_:22 in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038709838 = score(doc=4747,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4747, 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=4747)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source: Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.122-130

Yee, R.; Beaubien, R.: ¬A preliminary crosswalk from METS to IMS content packaging (2004) 0.01

0.00645164 = product of:
  0.019354919 = sum of:
    0.019354919 = product of:
      0.038709838 = sum of:
        0.038709838 = weight(_text_:22 in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038709838 = score(doc=4752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4752, 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=4752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source: Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.69-81

Wisser, K.M.; O'Brien Roper, J.: Maximizing metadata : exploring the EAD-MARC relationship (2003) 0.01

0.0053763664 = product of:
  0.016129099 = sum of:
    0.016129099 = product of:
      0.032258198 = sum of:
        0.032258198 = weight(_text_:22 in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032258198 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date: 10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Tosaka, Y.; Park, J.-r.: RDA: Resource description & access : a survey of the current state of the art (2013) 0.00
```
0.004980999 = product of:
  0.014942996 = sum of:
    0.014942996 = product of:
      0.029885992 = sum of:
        0.029885992 = weight(_text_:management in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029885992 = score(doc=677,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16050325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
Abstract

Resource Description & Access (RDA) is intended to provide a flexible and extensible framework that can accommodate all types of content and media within rapidly evolving digital environments while also maintaining compatibility with the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2). The cataloging community is grappling with practical issues in navigating the transition from AACR2 to RDA; there is a definite need to evaluate major subject areas and broader themes in information organization under the new RDA paradigm. This article aims to accomplish this task through a thorough and critical review of the emerging RDA literature published from 2005 to 2011. The review mostly concerns key areas of difference between RDA and AACR2, the relationship of the new cataloging code to metadata standards, the impact on encoding standards such as Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), end user considerations, and practitioners' views on RDA implementation and training. Future research will require more in-depth studies of RDA's expected benefits and the manner in which the new cataloging code will improve resource retrieval and bibliographic control for users and catalogers alike over AACR2. The question as to how the cataloging community can best move forward to the post-AACR2/MARC environment must be addressed carefully so as to chart the future of bibliographic control in the evolving environment of information production, management, and use.

Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors

Years

Types

Themes