Search (65 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  • × year_i:[1990 TO 2000}
  1. Guenther, R.S.: Bringing the Library of Congress into the computer age : converting LCC to machine-readable form (1996) 0.01 
    0.0102489805 = product of:
  0.07174286 = sum of:
    0.024842525 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024842525 = score(doc=4578,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = 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)
    0.046900336 = weight(_text_:frankfurt in 4578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046900336 = score(doc=4578,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10213336 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1562657 = idf(docFreq=1882, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.45920682 = fieldWeight in 4578, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1562657 = idf(docFreq=1882, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4578)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Imprint
    Frankfurt : INDEKS
    Theme
    Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval
  2. Chowdhury, G.G.: Record formats for integrated databases : a review and comparison (1996) 0.01 
    0.0057269144 = product of:
  0.0400884 = sum of:
    0.015495556 = weight(_text_:information in 7679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015495556 = score(doc=7679,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = 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)
    0.024592843 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024592843 = score(doc=7679,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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
  3. 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) 0.01 
    0.005693029 = product of:
  0.039851204 = sum of:
    0.010040177 = weight(_text_:information in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010040177 = score(doc=3008,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3008, 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=3008)
    0.029811028 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029811028 = score(doc=3008,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 3008, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3008)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Theme
    Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval
  4. Willner, E.: Preparing data for the Web with SGML/XML (1998) 0.00 
    0.004656976 = product of:
  0.03259883 = sum of:
    0.023132863 = weight(_text_:web in 2894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023132863 = score(doc=2894,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 2894, 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=2894)
    0.009465969 = weight(_text_:information in 2894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009465969 = score(doc=2894,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 2894, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2894)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    To solve the problem of information loss caused by format changes requires 1 more conversion to be made, i.e. to SGML or XML. Describes the 2 formats and discusses the conversion issues involved. The sooner conversion to SGML or XML is commenced the better for the organization and if necessary, outside facilities can be called upon to provide the expertise
    Source
    Information today. 15(1998) no.5, S.54
  5. Leazer, G.H.: ¬A conceptual schema for the control of bibliographic works (1994) 0.00 
    0.0045840573 = product of:
  0.0320884 = sum of:
    0.007245874 = weight(_text_:information in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007245874 = score(doc=3033,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 3033, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3033)
    0.024842525 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024842525 = score(doc=3033,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 3033, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3033)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    In this paper I describe a conceptual design of a bibliographic retrieval system that enables more thourough control of bibliographic entities. A bibliographic entity has 2 components: the intellectual work and the physical item. Users searching bibliographic retrieval systems generally do not search for a specific item, but are willing to retrieve one of several alternative manifestations of a work. However, contemporary bibliographic retrieval systems are based solely on the descriptions of items. Works are described only implcitly by collocating descriptions of items. This method has resulted in a tool that does not include important descriptive attributes of the work, e.g. information regarding its history, its genre, or its bibliographic relationships. A bibliographic relationship is an association between 2 bibliographic entities. A system evaluation methodology wasused to create a conceptual schema for a bibliographic retrieval system. The model is based upon an analysis of data elements in the USMARC Formats for Bibliographic Data. The conceptual schema describes a database comprising 2 separate files of bibliographic descriptions, one of works and the other of items. Each file consists of individual descriptive surrogates of their respective entities. the specific data content of each file is defined by a data dictionary. Data elements used in the description of bibliographic works reflect the nature of works as intellectual and linguistic objects. The descriptive elements of bibliographic items describe the physical properties of bibliographic entities. Bibliographic relationships constitute the logical strucutre of the database
    Imprint
    Oxford : Learned Information
    Source
    Navigating the networks: Proceedings of the 1994 Mid-year Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Portland, Oregon, May 21-25, 1994. Ed.: D.L. Andersen et al
  6. Kernernman, V.Y.; Koenig, M.E.D.: USMARC as a standardized format for the Internet hypermedia document control/retrieval/delivery system design (1996) 0.00 
    0.004349945 = product of:
  0.030449614 = sum of:
    0.00585677 = weight(_text_:information in 5565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00585677 = score(doc=5565,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = 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)
    0.024592843 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024592843 = score(doc=5565,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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
  7. Cantrall, D.: From MARC to Mosaic : progressing toward data interchangeability at the Oregon State Archives (1994) 0.00 
    0.0043407828 = product of:
  0.03038548 = sum of:
    0.020241255 = weight(_text_:web in 8470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020241255 = score(doc=8470,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = 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)
    0.010144223 = weight(_text_:information in 8470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010144223 = score(doc=8470,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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
  8. Guenther, R.S.: ¬The USMARC Format for Classification Data : development and implementation (1992) 0.00 
    0.003795353 = product of:
  0.02656747 = sum of:
    0.006693451 = weight(_text_:information in 2996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006693451 = score(doc=2996,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = 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)
    0.01987402 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01987402 = score(doc=2996,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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
  9. Guenther, R.S.: ¬The development and implementation of the USMARC format for classification data (1992) 0.00 
    0.003795353 = product of:
  0.02656747 = sum of:
    0.006693451 = weight(_text_:information in 8865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006693451 = score(doc=8865,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = 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)
    0.01987402 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01987402 = score(doc=8865,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Source
    Information technology and libraries. 11(1992) no.2, S.120-131
    Theme
    Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval
  10. Mueller, C.J.; Whittaker, M.A.: What is this thing called MARC(S)? (1990) 0.00 
    0.003795353 = product of:
  0.02656747 = sum of:
    0.006693451 = weight(_text_:information in 3588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006693451 = score(doc=3588,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3588, 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=3588)
    0.01987402 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01987402 = score(doc=3588,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 3588, 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=3588)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Contribution to an issue devoted to serials and reference services. Familiarity with the basic elements of the MARC format and their effect on the display and retrieval of bibliographic data is an essential element of public service in those libraries with MARC-based on-line catalogues. Describes the components of a MARC record. To successfully retrieve the information sought from an on-line catalogue, the catalogue user must know whether it is in an indexed field and, if so, must be familiar with the search strategies required by the system.
  11. Gopinath, M.A.: Standardization for resource sharing databases (1995) 0.00 
    0.0036105441 = product of:
  0.025273807 = sum of:
    0.01639554 = weight(_text_:information in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01639554 = score(doc=4414,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.38007212 = fieldWeight in 4414, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4414)
    0.0088782655 = product of:
      0.026634796 = sum of:
        0.026634796 = weight(_text_:22 in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026634796 = score(doc=4414,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08605168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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
    Source
    Library science with a slant to documentation and information studies. 32(1995) no.3, S.i-iv
  12. Ranta, J.A.: Queens Borough Public Library's Guidelines for cataloging community information (1996) 0.00 
    0.0033234344 = product of:
  0.02326404 = sum of:
    0.015495556 = weight(_text_:information in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015495556 = score(doc=6523,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.3592092 = fieldWeight in 6523, 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=6523)
    0.007768482 = product of:
      0.023305446 = sum of:
        0.023305446 = weight(_text_:22 in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023305446 = score(doc=6523,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08605168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6523, 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=6523)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Currently, few resources exist to guide libraries in the cataloguing of community information using the new USMARC Format for Cammunity Information (1993). In developing a community information database, Queens Borough Public Library, New York City, formulated their own cataloguing procedures for applying AACR2, LoC File Interpretations, and USMARC Format for Community Information to community information. Their practices include entering corporate names directly whenever possible and assigning LC subject headings for classes of persons and topics, adding neighbourhood level geographic subdivisions. The guidelines were specially designed to aid non cataloguers in cataloguing community information and have enabled library to maintain consistency in handling corporate names and in assigning subject headings, while creating database that is highly accessible to library staff and users
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.51-69
  13. Heaney, M.: Object-oriented cataloging (1995) 0.00 
    0.003320934 = product of:
  0.023246538 = sum of:
    0.00585677 = weight(_text_:information in 3339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00585677 = score(doc=3339,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3339, 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=3339)
    0.017389767 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017389767 = score(doc=3339,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 3339, 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=3339)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Catalogues have evolved from lists of physical items present in particular libraries into computerized access and retrieval tools for works dispersed across local and national boundaries. Works themselves are no longer constrained by physical form yet cataloguing rules have not evolved in parallel with these developments. Reanalyzes the nature of works and their publication in an approach based on object oriented modelling and demonstrates the advantages to be gained thereby. Suggests a strategic plan to enable an organic transformation to be made from current MARC based cataloguing to object oriented cataloguing. Proposes major revisions of MARC in order to allow records to maximize the benefits of both computerized databases and high speed data networks. This will involve a fundamental shift away from the AACR philosophy of description of, plus access to, physical items
    Source
    Information technology and libraries. 14(1995) no.3, S.135-153
  14. Fattahi, R.: ¬A uniform approach to the indexing of cataloguing data in online library systems (1997) 0.00 
    0.0028465146 = product of:
  0.019925602 = sum of:
    0.0050200885 = weight(_text_:information in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050200885 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = 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)
    0.014905514 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014905514 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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
  15. Mishra, K.S.: Bibliographic databases and exchange formats (1997) 0.00 
    0.002620605 = product of:
  0.018344235 = sum of:
    0.009465969 = weight(_text_:information in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009465969 = score(doc=1757,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 1757, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1757)
    0.0088782655 = product of:
      0.026634796 = sum of:
        0.026634796 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026634796 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08605168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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
  16. Crook, M.: Barbara Tillett discusses cataloging rules and conceptual models (1996) 0.00 
    0.0025589578 = product of:
  0.017912704 = sum of:
    0.010144223 = weight(_text_:information in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010144223 = score(doc=7683,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 7683, 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=7683)
    0.007768482 = product of:
      0.023305446 = sum of:
        0.023305446 = weight(_text_:22 in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023305446 = score(doc=7683,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08605168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7683, 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=7683)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    The chief of cataloguing policy and support office at the LoC presents her views on the usefulness of conceptual modelling in determining future directions for cataloguing and the MARC format. After describing the evolution of bibliographic processes, suggests usign the entity-relationship conceptual model to step back from how we record information today and start thinking about what information really means and why we provide it. Argues that now is the time to reexamine the basic principles which underpin Anglo-American cataloguing codes and that MARC formats should be looked at to see how they can evolve towards a future, improved structure for communicating bibliographic and authority information
    Source
    OCLC newsletter. 1996, no.220, S.20-22
  17. Holt, B.: Presentation of UNIMARC on the Web : new fields, including the one for electronic resources (1999) 0.00 
    0.0024785209 = product of:
  0.03469929 = sum of:
    0.03469929 = weight(_text_:web in 6020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03469929 = score(doc=6020,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 6020, 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=6020)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
  18. Murphy, C.: Curriculum-enhanced MARC (CEMARC) : a new cataloging format for school librarians (1995) 0.00 
    0.002406152 = product of:
  0.016843064 = sum of:
    0.00585677 = weight(_text_:information in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00585677 = score(doc=5100,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5100, 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=5100)
    0.010986294 = product of:
      0.03295888 = sum of:
        0.03295888 = weight(_text_:22 in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03295888 = score(doc=5100,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08605168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 5100, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5100)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Date
    11. 9.1996 19:22:20
    Source
    Literacy: traditional, cultural, technological. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the International Association of School Librarianship (selected papers), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh University, School of Library and Information Science, 17-22 Jul 94
  19. Michard, A.; Pham Dac, D.: Description of collections and encyclopedias on the Web using XML (1998) 0.00 
    0.0023367722 = product of:
  0.03271481 = sum of:
    0.03271481 = weight(_text_:web in 3493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03271481 = score(doc=3493,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 3493, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3493)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    Cataloguing artworks relies on the availability of classification schemes, often represented by hierarchical thesauri. Comments on the limitations of current practices and tools and proposes a new approach for the cooperative production of multilingual and multicultural classification schemes exploiting some features of the oncoming Extensible Markup Language based Web
  20. Weber, L.B.: Reading formatting MARC AMC (1990) 0.00 
    0.002224531 = product of:
  0.015571717 = sum of:
    0.006693451 = weight(_text_:information in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006693451 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 484, 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=484)
    0.0088782655 = product of:
      0.026634796 = sum of:
        0.026634796 = weight(_text_:22 in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026634796 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08605168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 484, 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=484)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses how archivists use the MARC AMC format to exchange information about archival materials. The paper explains the modifications that MARC AMC introduced to the MARC bibliographic formats; gives examples of a record in generic USMARC AMC, RLIN AMC, and OCLC AMC; and considers the possible impact of format integration. The paper concludes with some thoughts about the changes that MARC AMC is causing in the archival profession.
    Date
    8. 1.2007 14:22:51

Authors

Types

  • a 48
  • m 10
  • s 4
  • ? 1
  • el 1
  • l 1
  • n 1
  • More… Less…

Themes