Search (63 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  • × year_i:[1990 TO 2000}
  1. Caplan, P.; Guenther, R.: Metadata for Internet resources : the Dublin Core Metadata Elements Set and its mapping to USMARC (1996) 0.04 
    0.038636878 = product of:
  0.077273756 = sum of:
    0.04138403 = weight(_text_:data in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04138403 = score(doc=2408,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 2408, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2408)
    0.03588973 = product of:
      0.07177946 = sum of:
        0.07177946 = weight(_text_:22 in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07177946 = score(doc=2408,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This paper discuesses the goals and outcome of the OCLC/NCSA Metadata Workshop held March 1-3, 1995 in Dublin Ohio. The resulting proposed "Dublin Core" Metadata Elements Set is described briefly. An attempt is made to map the Dublin Core data elements to USMARC; problems and outstanding questions are noted.
    Date
    13. 1.2007 18:31:22
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.43-58
  2. Mishra, K.S.: Bibliographic databases and exchange formats (1997) 0.03 
    0.03338095 = product of:
  0.0667619 = sum of:
    0.04138403 = weight(_text_:data in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04138403 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 1757, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1757)
    0.025377871 = product of:
      0.050755743 = sum of:
        0.050755743 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050755743 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1757, 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=1757)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Computers play an important role in the development of bibliographic databases. Exchange formats are needed for the generation and exchange of bibliographic data at different levels: international, national, regional and local. Discusses the formats available at national and international level such as the International Standard Exchange Format (ISO 2709); the various MARC formats and the Common Communication Format (CCF). Work on Indian standards involving the Bureau of Indian Standards, the National Information System for Science and Technology (NISSAT) and other institutions proceeds only slowly
    Source
    DESIDOC bulletin of information technology. 17(1997) no.5, S.17-22
  3. Gopinath, M.A.: Standardization for resource sharing databases (1995) 0.03 
    0.029645886 = product of:
  0.118583545 = sum of:
    0.118583545 = sum of:
      0.067827806 = weight(_text_:processing in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.067827806 = score(doc=4414,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046827413 = queryNorm
          0.35780904 = fieldWeight in 4414, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4414)
      0.050755743 = weight(_text_:22 in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050755743 = score(doc=4414,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046827413 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4414, 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=4414)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    It is helpful and essential to adopt standards for bibliographic information, project description and institutional information which are shareable for access to information resources within a country. Describes a strategy for adopting international standards of bibliographic information exchange for developing a resource sharing facilitation database in India. A list of 22 ISO standards for information processing is included
  4. Delfino, E.: Data file formats for exchange of data (1993) 0.03 
    0.028917972 = product of:
  0.11567189 = sum of:
    0.11567189 = weight(_text_:data in 6690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11567189 = score(doc=6690,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.7811939 = fieldWeight in 6690, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6690)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Discusses examples of ASCII data formats available in database programs which can be used for data exchange. Describes comma-delimited format, fixed length format, and one field per line format. Details a WordPerfect wordprocessing macro for converting data in comma-delimited files of a database system into a secondary mail merge file format of a wordprocessing package
  5. Guenther, R.S.: Automating the Library of Congress Classification Scheme : implementation of the USMARC format for classification data (1996) 0.02 
    0.022174634 = product of:
  0.088698536 = sum of:
    0.088698536 = weight(_text_:data in 5578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088698536 = score(doc=5578,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.59902847 = fieldWeight in 5578, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5578)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
    Object
    USMARC for classification data
  6. Woods, E.W.; IFLA Section on classification and Indexing and Indexing and Information Technology; Joint Working Group on a Classification Format: Requirements for a format of classification data : Final report, July 1996 (1996) 0.02 
    0.021947198 = product of:
  0.08778879 = sum of:
    0.08778879 = weight(_text_:data in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08778879 = score(doc=3008,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.5928845 = fieldWeight in 3008, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3008)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Object
    USMARC for classification data
  7. Leeves, J.: Harmonising standards for bibliographic data interchange (1993) 0.02 
    0.01828933 = product of:
  0.07315732 = sum of:
    0.07315732 = weight(_text_:data in 6031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07315732 = score(doc=6031,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.49407038 = fieldWeight in 6031, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6031)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Reviews the provision for bibliographic data within EDIFACT, compares those provisions with the BIC draft standards for bibliographic databases and examines the implications for MARC based standards. Outlines the role of the major players involved. Describes stanbdards dealing with EDIFACT in greatest detail. Describes the library systems using the records
  8. Leazer, G.H.: ¬An examination of data elements for bibliographic description : toward a conceptual schema for the USMARC formats (1992) 0.02 
    0.018105512 = product of:
  0.07242205 = sum of:
    0.07242205 = weight(_text_:data in 4822) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07242205 = score(doc=4822,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 4822, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4822)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  9. Cantrall, D.: From MARC to Mosaic : progressing toward data interchangeability at the Oregon State Archives (1994) 0.02 
    0.018105512 = product of:
  0.07242205 = sum of:
    0.07242205 = weight(_text_:data in 8470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07242205 = score(doc=8470,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 8470, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8470)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  10. Guenther, R.S.: ¬The Library of Congress Classification in the USMARC format (1994) 0.02 
    0.018105512 = product of:
  0.07242205 = sum of:
    0.07242205 = weight(_text_:data in 8864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07242205 = score(doc=8864,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 8864, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8864)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The paper reviews the development of the USMARC Format for Classification Data, a standard for communication of classification data in machine-readable form. It considers the uses for online classification schedules, both for technical services and reference functions and gives an overview of the format specification details of data elements used and of the structure of the records. The paper describes an experiment conducted at the Library of Congress to test the format as well as the development of the classification database encompassing the LCC schedules. Features of the classification system are given. The LoC will complete its conversion of the LCC in mid-1995
    Object
    USMARC for classification data
  11. Soergel, D.: Framework for data element standardization (1995) 0.02 
    0.018105512 = product of:
  0.07242205 = sum of:
    0.07242205 = weight(_text_:data in 4574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07242205 = score(doc=4574,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 4574, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4574)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  12. Schmitz, K.-D.: MARTIF: a new ISO standard for the interchange of terminological data (1995) 0.02 
    0.018105512 = product of:
  0.07242205 = sum of:
    0.07242205 = weight(_text_:data in 6852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07242205 = score(doc=6852,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 6852, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6852)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  13. Guenther, R.S.: ¬The USMARC Format for Classification Data : development and implementation (1992) 0.02 
    0.017919812 = product of:
  0.07167925 = sum of:
    0.07167925 = weight(_text_:data in 2996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07167925 = score(doc=2996,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48408815 = fieldWeight in 2996, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2996)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
    Object
    USMARC for classification data
  14. USMARC format for bibliographic data : including guidelines for content designation (1994) 0.02 
    0.017919812 = product of:
  0.07167925 = sum of:
    0.07167925 = weight(_text_:data in 8041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07167925 = score(doc=8041,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48408815 = fieldWeight in 8041, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8041)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Here is the standard for representing and exchanging bibliographic data in machine-readable form in the United States. This comprehensive publication defines the structure of the MARC bibliographic record in full detail. Also defines the codes and conventions (tags, indicators, subfield codes and codes values) that identify the data elements in USMARC bibliographic records. Includes specifications for a National Level Bibliographic record (both full and minimal). The remaining future format integration changes are specified
  15. Aliprand, J.M.: Linking of alternate graphic representation in USMARC authority records (1993) 0.02 
    0.017919812 = product of:
  0.07167925 = sum of:
    0.07167925 = weight(_text_:data in 8341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07167925 = score(doc=8341,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48408815 = fieldWeight in 8341, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8341)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Discusses the facilities in USMARC for linking fields containing non Roman scripts to their Romanized counterparts. In USMARC authority records, the 880 field: Alternate graphic representation (which contains the authentic non Roman text); is linked to the field that contains the same information in romanized form. The 880 field was added to the USMARC Format for Bibliographic Data in 1984 and to the USMARC Format for Authority Data in 1991. The new data elements in the Authority Format are modeled on those of the Bibliographic Format
  16. Guenther, R.S.: ¬The development and implementation of the USMARC format for classification data (1992) 0.02 
    0.017919812 = product of:
  0.07167925 = sum of:
    0.07167925 = weight(_text_:data in 8865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07167925 = score(doc=8865,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48408815 = fieldWeight in 8865, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8865)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
    Object
    USMARC for classification data
  17. Leeves, J.: EDIBIB: harmonising standards for bibliographic data interchange : a report prepared for Book Industry Communication (1993) 0.02 
    0.017919812 = product of:
  0.07167925 = sum of:
    0.07167925 = weight(_text_:data in 9) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07167925 = score(doc=9,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48408815 = fieldWeight in 9, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=9)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Report commissioned by Book Industry Communications (BIC) and funded by the British National Bibliography Research Fund and the Britsh National Bibliographic Service. The aims of the project were: to review the provisions for bibliographic data within EDIFACT (Electronic Data Interchange for Administration, Commerce and Transport); to compare those provisions with the BIC draft standards for bibliographic databases and the book publishing industry, and to examine the implications for MARC based databases, such as UKMARC
  18. McDonough, J.P.: SGML and USMARC standard : applying markup to bibliographic data (1998) 0.02 
    0.017919812 = product of:
  0.07167925 = sum of:
    0.07167925 = weight(_text_:data in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07167925 = score(doc=1425,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48408815 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The recent increase in electronic publishing has led many in the library community to consider altering standards for bibliographic data to promote greater compatibility between digital works and their bibliographic representation. SGML has been prominently mentioned as a mechanism for encoding bibliographic data. Examines the problems and potential of applying SGML to to USMARC record standard, with a particular emphasis on issues of field order and repeatability, character set encoding, and obsolete fields
  19. Fattahi, R.: ¬A uniform approach to the indexing of cataloguing data in online library systems (1997) 0.02 
    0.017350782 = product of:
  0.06940313 = sum of:
    0.06940313 = weight(_text_:data in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06940313 = score(doc=131,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.46871632 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  20. USMARC format for classification data : including guidelines for content designation (1991) 0.02 
    0.015679834 = product of:
  0.06271934 = sum of:
    0.06271934 = weight(_text_:data in 4372) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06271934 = score(doc=4372,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.42357713 = fieldWeight in 4372, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4372)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Format specifications for the communication of MARC classification records, which may be used in online public catalog retrieval systems, in systems to maintain and develop classification schedules, and in online systems for library classifiers. Defines the codes and conventions (tags, indicators, subfield codes, and codes values) that identify the data elements in the records. Developed to support the 2 major US classification schemes: Library of Congress Classification and Dewey Decimal Classification, but also lets you communicate other classification schemes. Includes a glossary of classification terms and full record examples of LCC, DDC, NLM classification and UDC
    Object
    USMARC for classification data

Authors

Types

  • a 49
  • m 4
  • l 3
  • ? 2
  • r 2
  • s 2
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications