Search (119 results, page 1 of 6)

0.03269929 = product of:
  0.17439622 = sum of:
    0.026127389 = weight(_text_:web in 5172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026127389 = score(doc=5172,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 5172, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5172)
    0.14292318 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 5172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14292318 = score(doc=5172,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.18211427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.7847994 = fieldWeight in 5172, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5172)
    0.005345665 = weight(_text_:information in 5172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005345665 = score(doc=5172,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5172, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5172)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)

Abstract

One of the big challenges facing academic libraries today is to increase the relevance of the libraries to their user communities. If the libraries can increase the visibility of their resources on the open web, it will increase the chances of the libraries to reach to their user communities via the user's first search experience. BIBFRAME and library Linked Data will enable libraries to publish their resources in a way that the Web understands, consume Linked Data to enrich their resources relevant to the libraries' user communities, and visualize networks across collections. However, one of the important steps for transitioning to BIBFRAME and library Linked Data involves crosswalks, mapping MARC fields and subfields across data models and performing necessary data reformatting to be in compliance with the specifications of the new model, which is currently BIBFRAME 2.0. This article looks into how the Library of Congress has mapped library bibliographic data from the MARC format to the BIBFRAME 2.0 model and vocabulary published and updated since April 2016, available from http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/index.html based on the recently released conversion specifications and converter, developed by the Library of Congress with input from many community members. The BIBFRAME 2.0 standard and conversion tools will enable libraries to transform bibliographic data from MARC into BIBFRAME 2.0, which introduces a Linked Data model as the improved method of bibliographic control for the future, and make bibliographic information more useful within and beyond library communities.

Object

BIBFRAME 2.0

0.03118084 = product of:
  0.12472336 = sum of:
    0.04767549 = weight(_text_:wide in 8470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04767549 = score(doc=8470,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13912784 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 8470, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8470)
    0.025864797 = weight(_text_:web in 8470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025864797 = score(doc=8470,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 8470, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8470)
    0.012962549 = weight(_text_:information in 8470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012962549 = score(doc=8470,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 8470, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8470)
    0.038220525 = weight(_text_:software in 8470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038220525 = score(doc=8470,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124570385 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.30681872 = fieldWeight in 8470, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8470)
  0.25 = coord(4/16)

Abstract

Explains the technology used by the Oregon State Archives to relaize the goal of data interchangeability given the prescribed nature of the MARC format. Describes an emergent model of learning and information delivery focusing on the example of World Wide Web, accessed most often by the software client Mosaic, which is the fastest growing segment of the Internet information highway. Also describes The Data Magician, a flexible program which allows for many combinations of input and output formats, and will read unconventional formats such as MARC communications format. Oregon State Archives, using Mosaic and The Data Magician, are consequently able to present valuable electronic information to a variety of users

0.029859368 = product of:
  0.11943747 = sum of:
    0.04767549 = weight(_text_:wide in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04767549 = score(doc=5423,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13912784 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 5423, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5423)
    0.036578346 = weight(_text_:web in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036578346 = score(doc=5423,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 5423, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5423)
    0.012962549 = weight(_text_:information in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012962549 = score(doc=5423,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 5423, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5423)
    0.022221092 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022221092 = score(doc=5423,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 5423, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5423)
  0.25 = coord(4/16)

Abstract

This article explores recent discussions about appropriate mark-up conventions for library information intended for use on the World Wide Web. In particular, the question of whether the MARC 21 format will continue to be useful and whether the time is right for a full-fledged conversion effort to XML is explored. The author concludes that the MARC format will be relevant well into the future, and its use will not hamper access to bibliographic information via the web. Early XML exploratory efforts carried out at the Stanford University's Lane Medical Library are reported on. Although these efforts are a promising start, much more consultation and investigation is needed to arrive at broadly acceptable standards for XML library information encoding and retrieval.

0.025738467 = product of:
  0.06863591 = sum of:
    0.01702696 = weight(_text_:wide in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01702696 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13912784 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.122383565 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.018474855 = weight(_text_:web in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018474855 = score(doc=1166,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.0069183228 = product of:
      0.0138366455 = sum of:
        0.0138366455 = weight(_text_:online in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0138366455 = score(doc=1166,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09529729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.14519453 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.004629482 = weight(_text_:information in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004629482 = score(doc=1166,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.083984874 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.007936104 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007936104 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.08355226 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.013650188 = weight(_text_:software in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013650188 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124570385 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.10957812 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
  0.375 = coord(6/16)

Abstract

This article presents an overview of the LEAF project (Linking and Exploring Authority Files)1, which has set out to provide a framework for international, collaborative work in the sector of authority data with respect to authority control. Elaborating the virtues of authority control in today's Web environment is an almost futile exercise, since so much has been said and written about it in the last few years.2 The World Wide Web is generally understood to be poorly structured-both with regard to content and to locating required information. Highly structured databases might be viewed as small islands of precision within this chaotic environment. Though the Web in general or any particular structured database would greatly benefit from increased authority control, it should be noted that our following considerations only refer to authority control with regard to databases of "memory institutions" (i.e., libraries, archives, and museums). Moreover, when talking about authority records, we exclusively refer to personal name authority records that describe a specific person. Although different types of authority records could indeed be used in similar ways to the ones presented in this article, discussing those different types is outside the scope of both the LEAF project and this article. Personal name authority records-as are all other "authorities"-are maintained as separate records and linked to various kinds of descriptive records. Name authority records are usually either kept in independent databases or in separate tables in the database containing the descriptive records. This practice points at a crucial benefit: by linking any number of descriptive records to an authorized name record, the records related to this entity are collocated in the database. Variant forms of the authorized name are referenced in the authority records and thus ensure the consistency of the database while enabling search and retrieval operations that produce accurate results. On one hand, authority control may be viewed as a positive prerequisite of a consistent catalogue; on the other, the creation of new authority records is a very time consuming and expensive undertaking. As a consequence, various models of providing access to existing authority records have emerged: the Library of Congress and the French National Library (Bibliothèque nationale de France), for example, make their authority records available to all via a web-based search service.3 In Germany, the Personal Name Authority File (PND, Personennamendatei4) maintained by the German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek, Frankfurt/Main) offers a different approach to shared access: within a closed network, participating institutions have online access to their pooled data. The number of recent projects and initiatives that have addressed the issue of authority control in one way or another is considerable.5 Two important current initiatives should be mentioned here: The Name Authority Cooperative (NACO) and Virtual International Authority File (VIAF).
NACO was established in 1976 and is hosted by the Library of Congress. At the beginning of 2003, nearly 400 institutions were involved in this undertaking, including 43 institutions from outside the United States.6 Despite the enormous success of NACO and the impressive annual growth of the initiative, there are requirements for participation that form an obstacle for many institutions: they have to follow the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) and employ the MARC217 data format. Participating institutions also have to belong to either OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) or RLG (Research Libraries Group) in order to be able to contribute records, and they have to provide a specified minimum number of authority records per year. A recent proof of concept project of the Library of Congress, OCLC and the German National Library-Virtual International Authority File (VIAF)8-will, in its first phase, test automatic linking of the records of the Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF) and the German Personal Name Authority File by using matching algorithms and software developed by OCLC. The results are expected to form the basis of a "Virtual International Authority File". The project will then test the maintenance of the virtual authority file by employing the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)9 to harvest the metadata for new, updated, and deleted records. When using the "Virtual International Authority File" a cataloguer will be able to check the system to see whether the authority record he wants to establish already exists. The final phase of the project will test possibilities for displaying records in the preferred language and script of the end user. Currently, there are still some clear limitations associated with the ways in which authority records are used by memory institutions. One of the main problems has to do with limited access: generally only large institutions or those that are part of a library network have unlimited online access to permanently updated authority records. Smaller institutions outside these networks usually have to fall back on less efficient ways of obtaining authority data, or have no access at all. Cross-domain sharing of authority data between libraries, archives, museums and other memory institutions simply does not happen at present. Public users are, by and large, not even aware that such things as name authority records exist and are excluded from access to these information resources.

0.019886991 = product of:
  0.079547964 = sum of:
    0.027243135 = weight(_text_:wide in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027243135 = score(doc=3005,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13912784 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.1958137 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
    0.020901911 = weight(_text_:web in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020901911 = score(doc=3005,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
    0.009562616 = weight(_text_:information in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009562616 = score(doc=3005,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.1734784 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
    0.021840302 = weight(_text_:software in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021840302 = score(doc=3005,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124570385 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.17532499 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
  0.25 = coord(4/16)

Abstract

Using new communication technologies libraries must face continuously new questions, possibilities and expectations. This study discusses library-related aspects of our electronic era and how computer-related data formats affect bibliographic dataprocessing to give a summary of the most important results. First bibliographic formats for the exchange of bibliographic and related information in the machine-readable form between different types of computer systems were created more than 30 years ago. The evolution of information technologies leads to the improvement of computer systems. In addition to the development of computers and media types Internet has a great influence on data structure as well. Since the introduction of MARC bibliographic format, technology of data exchange between computers and between different computer systems has reached a very sophisticated stage and has contributed to the creation of new standards in this field. Today libraries work with this new infrastructure that induces many challenges. One of the most significant challenges is moving from a relatively homogenous bibliographic environment to a diverse one. Despite these challenges such changes are achievable and necessary to exploit possibilities of new metadata and technologies like the Internet and XML (Extensible Markup Language). XML is an open standard, a universal language for data on the Web. XML is nearly six-years-old standard designed for the description and computer-based management of (semi)-structured data and structured texts. XML gives developers the power to deliver structured data from a wide variety of applications and it is also an ideal format from server-to-server transfer of structured data. XML also isn't limited for Internet use and is an especially valuable tool in the field of library. In fact, XML's main strength - organizing information - makes it perfect for exchanging data between different systems. Tools that work with the XML can be used to process XML records without incurring additional costs associated with one's own software development. In addition, XML is also a suitable format for library web services. The Department of Computer-related Graphic Design and Library and Information Sciences of Debrecen University launched the BDML (Bibliographic Description Markup Language) development project in order to standardize bibliogrphic description with the help of XML.

Source

Librarianship in the information age: Proceedings of the 13th BOBCATSSS Symposium, 31 January - 2 February 2005 in Budapest, Hungary. Eds.: Marte Langeland u.a

0.017581692 = product of:
  0.14065354 = sum of:
    0.017106129 = weight(_text_:information in 2) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017106129 = score(doc=2,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 2, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2)
    0.12354741 = weight(_text_:software in 2) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12354741 = score(doc=2,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124570385 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.99178797 = fieldWeight in 2, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Source

Microcomputers for information management. 6(1989), S.197-205

Theme

Bibliographische Software

0.014298417 = product of:
  0.07625822 = sum of:
    0.015816603 = product of:
      0.031633206 = sum of:
        0.031633206 = weight(_text_:online in 5578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031633206 = score(doc=5578,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09529729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.33194235 = fieldWeight in 5578, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5578)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.022221092 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022221092 = score(doc=5578,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 5578, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5578)
    0.038220525 = weight(_text_:software in 5578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038220525 = score(doc=5578,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124570385 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.30681872 = fieldWeight in 5578, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5578)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)

Abstract

Potential uses for classification data in machine readable form and reasons for the development of a standard, the USMARC Format for Classification Data, which allows for classification data to interact with other USMARC bibliographic and authority data are discussed. The development, structure, content, and use of the standard is reviewed with implementation decisions for the Library of Congress Classification scheme noted. The author examines the implementation of USMARC classification at LC, the conversion of the schedules, and the functionality of the software being used. Problems in the effort are explored, and enhancements desired for the online classification system are considered.

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.013870672 = product of:
  0.07397692 = sum of:
    0.022169823 = weight(_text_:web in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022169823 = score(doc=5070,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 5070, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5070)
    0.01904665 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01904665 = score(doc=5070,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 5070, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5070)
    0.032760452 = weight(_text_:software in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032760452 = score(doc=5070,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124570385 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 5070, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5070)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)

Abstract

Much research has focused on the problem of knowledge accessibility, sharing and reuse. Specific languages (e.g. KIF, CG, RDF) and ontologies have been proposed. Common characteristics, conventions or ontological distinctions are beginning to emerge. Since knowledge providers (humans and software agents) must follow common conventions for the knowledge to be widely accessed and re-used, we propose lexical, structural, semantic and ontological conventions based on various knowledge representation projects and our own research. These are minimal conventions that can be followed by most and cover the most common knowledge representation cases. However, agreement and refinements are still required. We also show that a notation can be both readable and expressive by quickly presenting two new notations -- Formalized English (FE) and Frame-CG (FCG) - derived from the CG linear form [9] and Frame-Logics [4]. These notations support the above conventions, and are implemented in our Web-based knowledge representation and document indexation tool, WebKB¹ [7]

0.0097546335 = product of:
  0.052024715 = sum of:
    0.018076118 = product of:
      0.036152236 = sum of:
        0.036152236 = weight(_text_:online in 2996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036152236 = score(doc=2996,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09529729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.37936267 = fieldWeight in 2996, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2996)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.008553064 = weight(_text_:information in 2996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008553064 = score(doc=2996,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 2996, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2996)
    0.025395533 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025395533 = score(doc=2996,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 2996, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2996)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)

Abstract

This paper discusses the newly developed USMARC Format for Classification Data. It reviews its potential uses within an online system and its development as one of the USMARC standards for representing bibliographic and related information in machine-readable form. It provides a summary of the fields in the format, and considers the prospects for its implementation.

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.0097546335 = product of:
  0.052024715 = sum of:
    0.018076118 = product of:
      0.036152236 = sum of:
        0.036152236 = weight(_text_:online in 8865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036152236 = score(doc=8865,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09529729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.37936267 = fieldWeight in 8865, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.008553064 = weight(_text_:information in 8865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008553064 = score(doc=8865,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 8865, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8865)
    0.025395533 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025395533 = score(doc=8865,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 8865, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8865)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)

Abstract

This paper discusses the newly developed USMARC Format for Classification Data. It reviews its potential uses within an online system and its development as one of the USMARC standards. It provides a summary of the fields in the format and considers the prospects for its implementation. The papaer describes an experiment currently being conducted at the Library of Congress to create USMARC classification records and use a classification database in classifying materials in the social sciences

Source

Information technology and libraries. 11(1992) no.2, S.120-131

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.009392499 = product of:
  0.050093327 = sum of:
    0.0111840265 = product of:
      0.022368053 = sum of:
        0.022368053 = weight(_text_:online in 5565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022368053 = score(doc=5565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09529729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.23471867 = fieldWeight in 5565, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5565)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0074839313 = weight(_text_:information in 5565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074839313 = score(doc=5565,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5565, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5565)
    0.031425368 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031425368 = score(doc=5565,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 5565, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5565)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)

Abstract

Surveys how the USMARC integrated bibliographic format (UBIF) could be mapped onto an hypermedia document USMARC format (HDUF) to meet the requirements of a hypermedia document control/retrieval/delivery (HDRD) system for the Internet. Explores the characteristics of such a system using an example of the WWW's directory and searching engine Yahoo!. Discusses additional standard specifications for the UBIF's structure, content designation, and data content to map this format into the HDUF that can serve as a proxy for the Net HDRD system

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Information Today

Source

Proceedings of the 17th National Online Meeting 1996, New York, 14-16 May 1996. Ed.: M.E. Williams

0.0077526765 = product of:
  0.041347608 = sum of:
    0.022169823 = weight(_text_:web in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022169823 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3841, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3841)
    0.006414798 = weight(_text_:information in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006414798 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3841, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3841)
    0.012762985 = product of:
      0.02552597 = sum of:
        0.02552597 = weight(_text_:22 in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02552597 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10995905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = 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)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)

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

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.007315975 = product of:
  0.039018534 = sum of:
    0.013557088 = product of:
      0.027114175 = sum of:
        0.027114175 = weight(_text_:online in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027114175 = score(doc=131,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09529729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.284522 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.006414798 = weight(_text_:information in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006414798 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
    0.01904665 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01904665 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)

Abstract

Argues that in library cataloguing and for optional functionality of bibliographic records the indexing of fields and subfields should follow a uniform approach. This would maintain effectiveness in searching, retrieval and display of bibliographic information both within systems and between systems. However, a review of different postings to the AUTOCAT and USMARC discussion lists indicates that the indexing and tagging of cataloguing data do not, at present, follow a consistent approach in online library systems. If the rationale of cataloguing principles is to bring uniformity in bibliographic description and effectiveness in access, they should also address the question of uniform approaches to the indexing of cataloguing data. In this context and in terms of the identification and handling of data elements, cataloguing standards (codes, MARC formats and the Z39.50 standard) should be brought closer, in that they should provide guidelines for the designation of data elements for machine readable records

0.0071461555 = product of:
  0.057169244 = sum of:
    0.044339646 = weight(_text_:web in 3918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044339646 = score(doc=3918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 3918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3918)
    0.012829596 = weight(_text_:information in 3918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012829596 = score(doc=3918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3918)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

0.0068934592 = product of:
  0.055147674 = sum of:
    0.04131103 = weight(_text_:web in 133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04131103 = score(doc=133,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 133, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=133)
    0.0138366455 = product of:
      0.027673291 = sum of:
        0.027673291 = weight(_text_:online in 133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027673291 = score(doc=133,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09529729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.29038906 = fieldWeight in 133, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=133)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

This paper describes an experiment exploring the hypothesis that innovative application of the Functional Require-ments for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) principles can complement traditional bibliographic resource discovery systems in order to improve the user experience. A specialized service was implemented that, when given a plain list of results from a regular online catalogue, was able to process, enrich and present that list in a more relevant way for the user. This service pre-processes the records of a traditional online catalogue in order to build a semantic structure following the FRBR model. The service also explores web search features that have been revolutionizing the way users conceptualize resource discovery, such as relevance ranking and metasearching. This work was developed in the context of the TELPlus project. We processed nearly one hundred thousand bibliographic and authority records, in multiple languages, and originating from twelve European na-tional libraries. This paper describes the architecture of the service and the main challenges faced, especially concerning the extraction and linking of the relevant FRBR entities from the bibliographic metadata produced by the libraries. The service was evaluated by end users, who filled out a questionnaire after using a traditional online catalogue and the new service, both with the same bibliographic collection. The analysis of the results supports the hypothesis that FRBR can be implemented for re-source discovery in a non-intrusive way, reusing the data of any existing traditional bibliographic system.

Content

Beitrag eines Schwerpunktthemas: Semantic Web and Reasoning for Cultural Heritage and Digital Libraries: Vgl.: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/supporting-multilingual-bibliographic-resource-discovery-functional-requirements-bibliograph http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/sites/default/files/swj145_2.pdf.

Source

Semantic Web journal. 3(2012) no.1, S.3-21

0.006703235 = product of:
  0.05362588 = sum of:
    0.029559765 = weight(_text_:web in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029559765 = score(doc=2845,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
    0.024066117 = product of:
      0.048132233 = sum of:
        0.048132233 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048132233 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10995905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = 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)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

The current library bibliographic infrastructure was constructed in the early days of computers - before the Web, XML, and a variety of other technological advances that now offer new opportunities. General requirements of a modern metadata infrastructure for libraries are identified, including such qualities as versatility, extensibility, granularity, and openness. A new kind of metadata infrastructure is then proposed that exhibits at least some of those qualities. Some key challenges that must be overcome to implement a change of this magnitude are identified.

Date

9.12.2005 19:22:38

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.175-181

0.0064032488 = product of:
  0.05122599 = sum of:
    0.01980062 = weight(_text_:information in 7679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01980062 = score(doc=7679,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.3592092 = fieldWeight in 7679, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7679)
    0.031425368 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031425368 = score(doc=7679,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 7679, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7679)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

Discusses the issues involved in the development of data formats for computerized information retrieval systems. Integrated databases capable of holding both bibliographic and factual information, in a single database structure, are more convenient for searching and retrieval by end users. Several bibliographic formats have been developed and are used for these bibliographic control puposes. Reviews features of 6 major bibliographic formats: USMARC, UKMARC, UNIMARC, CCF, MIBIS and ABNCD are reviewed. Only 2 formats: CCF and ABNCD are capable of holding both bibliographic and factual information and supporting the design of integrated databases. The comparison suggests that, while CCF makes more detailed provision for bibliographic information, ABNCD makes better provision for factual information such as profiles of institutions, information systems, projects and human experts

Source

Information development. 12(1996) no.4, S.218-223

0.006192612 = product of:
  0.049540896 = sum of:
    0.036578346 = weight(_text_:web in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036578346 = score(doc=5896,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
    0.012962549 = weight(_text_:information in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012962549 = score(doc=5896,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

This paper proposes the use of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) as a language for modelling ontologies for Web resources and the knowledge contained within them. To provide a mechanism for serialising and processing object diagrams representing knowledge, a pair of XSI-T stylesheets have been developed to map from XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) encodings of class diagrams to corresponding RDF schemas and to Java classes representing the concepts in the ontologies. The Java code includes methods for marshalling and unmarshalling object-oriented information between in-memory data structures and RDF serialisations of that information. This provides a convenient mechanism for Java applications to share knowledge on the Web

Source

Journal of digital information. 1(2001) no.8

0.006175569 = product of:
  0.04940455 = sum of:
    0.0111840265 = product of:
      0.022368053 = sum of:
        0.022368053 = weight(_text_:online in 3715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022368053 = score(doc=3715,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09529729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.23471867 = fieldWeight in 3715, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3715)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.038220525 = weight(_text_:software in 3715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038220525 = score(doc=3715,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124570385 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.30681872 = fieldWeight in 3715, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3715)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

Discusses ways of applying MARC Field 856 (Electronic Location and Access) to authority records in online union catalogues. In principle, each catalogue site location can be treated as the electronic record of the work concerned and the MARC Field 856 can then refer to this location as if it were referring to the location of a primary record. Although URLs may become outdated, the fact that they are located in specifically defined MARC Fields makes the data contained amenable to the same link maintenance software ae used for the electronic records themselves. Includes practical examples of typical union catalogue records incorporating MARC Field 856

0.0059651993 = product of:
  0.047721595 = sum of:
    0.01597718 = product of:
      0.03195436 = sum of:
        0.03195436 = weight(_text_:online in 4578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03195436 = score(doc=4578,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09529729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.33531237 = fieldWeight in 4578, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4578)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.031744417 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031744417 = score(doc=4578,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 4578, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4578)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval