Search (67 results, page 1 of 4)

0.08243552 = product of:
  0.16487104 = sum of:
    0.048334967 = weight(_text_:world in 8470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048334967 = score(doc=8470,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.29726875 = fieldWeight in 8470, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8470)
    0.06422812 = weight(_text_:wide in 8470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06422812 = score(doc=8470,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18743214 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = 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)
    0.03484489 = weight(_text_:web in 8470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03484489 = score(doc=8470,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = 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)
    0.017463064 = weight(_text_:information in 8470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017463064 = score(doc=8470,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

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

0.014604318 = product of:
  0.05841727 = sum of:
    0.048334967 = weight(_text_:world in 872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048334967 = score(doc=872,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.29726875 = fieldWeight in 872, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=872)
    0.010082305 = weight(_text_:information in 872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010082305 = score(doc=872,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 872, 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=872)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

MARC, variantly known as LCMARC and USMARC, has been adopted as a bibliographic record exchange format by libraries the world over. To accomodate the unique requirements of automated systems, geographic regions, and scripts, the format has been modified to various degrees. There are also extensions to MARC which consist of additional content designations: fields, subfields, indicator values, and characters. While the USMARC records will fit into the extended format, the extended format's information will not fit into pure USMARC. DMARC (DOBIS MARC) is one of the extended formats of USMARC. Describes the structure of the DMARC format including content designation. EBCDIC, the internal processing of DOBIS and the support of Arabic text prepared by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM). Discusses USMARC format integration and its impact on DOBIS/LIBIS

0.014029548 = product of:
  0.05611819 = sum of:
    0.039822727 = weight(_text_:web in 2894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039822727 = score(doc=2894,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = 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)
    0.016295465 = weight(_text_:information in 2894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016295465 = score(doc=2894,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.012787547 = product of:
  0.051150188 = sum of:
    0.028224573 = weight(_text_:information in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028224573 = score(doc=4414,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = 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)
    0.022925617 = product of:
      0.045851234 = sum of:
        0.045851234 = weight(_text_:22 in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045851234 = score(doc=4414,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.011960825 = product of:
  0.0478433 = sum of:
    0.02667527 = weight(_text_:information in 7679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02667527 = score(doc=7679,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = 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)
    0.021168029 = product of:
      0.042336058 = sum of:
        0.042336058 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042336058 = score(doc=7679,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.0116837965 = product of:
  0.046735186 = sum of:
    0.02667527 = weight(_text_:information in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02667527 = score(doc=6523,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = 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)
    0.020059915 = product of:
      0.04011983 = sum of:
        0.04011983 = weight(_text_:22 in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04011983 = score(doc=6523,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.010735869 = product of:
  0.042943478 = sum of:
    0.01728395 = weight(_text_:information in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01728395 = score(doc=3008,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = 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)
    0.025659526 = product of:
      0.05131905 = sum of:
        0.05131905 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05131905 = score(doc=3008,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.010357493 = product of:
  0.08285994 = sum of:
    0.08285994 = weight(_text_:world in 350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08285994 = score(doc=350,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.50960356 = fieldWeight in 350, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=350)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.01012567 = product of:
  0.04050268 = sum of:
    0.027619982 = weight(_text_:world in 7884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027619982 = score(doc=7884,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.16986786 = fieldWeight in 7884, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7884)
    0.012882696 = weight(_text_:information in 7884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012882696 = score(doc=7884,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.1734784 = fieldWeight in 7884, 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=7884)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Content

Enthält u.a. die Beiträge: TEMPLETON, R.: The Library Association's role in developing standards; HARRISON, H.P.: Special materials and problems: standards for audiovisual materials; ANDERSON, D.: Selections of bibliographic standards and the processes of standardization; GILCHRIST, A.: The standards jungle; BOURNE, R.: The IFLA UBCIM programme: standards in the changing world; ROBERTS, W.: The role of IFLA in framing and promoting bibliographic standards; HILL, M.W.: Standards for information handling: needs and dilemmas; JUSU-SHERIFF, G.: Standardization: an African viewpoint; BISWAS, S.C.: Standardization of bibliographic control in South Asia; CROUCHER, M.: The British National Bibliography: an historical perspective; BUCKLEY, B.J.: CD-ROM at the British Library; HOPKINSON, A.: Information transfer and exchange formats; HESELTINE, R.G.: Library automation in the 1990s: the open systems future; GRAVES, S.E.: Problems of serials control; ODDY, P.: Authority control in the local, national and international environment; MITCHELL, J.: Library co-operatives: bibliographic databases; BROWN, S.: Angl-American cataloguing rules; MORELELI-CACOURIS, M. u. M. SKEPASTIANU: Cataloguing practices in Greece; MUN, K.S.: Bibliographic description and information exchange in Southeast Asia: a survey; CURWEN, A.G.: International standard bibliographic description; HANCOCK-BEAULIEU, M.: Bibliographic standards and the online catalogue user; WILLIAMSON, N.J.: Subject cataloguing and LCSH; AITCHISON, J.: Subject control: thesaurus construction standards; SWEENEY, R.: Dewey Decimal Classification: an international standard; McILWAINE, I.C.: Present role and future policy for UDC as a standard for subject control; BUXTON, A.B.: UDC in online systems; BUXTON, A.B.: International gateways; BUXTON, A.B.: Common command languages

0.0098052705 = product of:
  0.039221082 = sum of:
    0.016295465 = weight(_text_:information in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016295465 = score(doc=1757,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = 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)
    0.022925617 = product of:
      0.045851234 = sum of:
        0.045851234 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045851234 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.009612828 = product of:
  0.03845131 = sum of:
    0.010082305 = weight(_text_:information in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010082305 = score(doc=5100,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = 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)
    0.028369006 = product of:
      0.05673801 = sum of:
        0.05673801 = weight(_text_:22 in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05673801 = score(doc=5100,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.009380745 = product of:
  0.03752298 = sum of:
    0.017463064 = weight(_text_:information in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017463064 = score(doc=7683,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = 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)
    0.020059915 = product of:
      0.04011983 = sum of:
        0.04011983 = weight(_text_:22 in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04011983 = score(doc=7683,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.009175445 = product of:
  0.07340356 = sum of:
    0.07340356 = weight(_text_:wide in 3542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07340356 = score(doc=3542,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18743214 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.3916274 = fieldWeight in 3542, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3542)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

MARC (Machine Readable Cataloguing) format has been widely used and discussed in the library profession. However, there appear to have a wide spread misunderstanding of its real structure and attributes. Discusses the need for use to understand it a little more. Presents the general misconceptions about MARC, the structure of MARC format. In this library automation age, MARC is a key element in library services, and it deserves another look.

0.008612063 = product of:
  0.03444825 = sum of:
    0.011522634 = weight(_text_:information in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011522634 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = 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)
    0.022925617 = product of:
      0.045851234 = sum of:
        0.045851234 = weight(_text_:22 in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045851234 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.008464139 = product of:
  0.033856556 = sum of:
    0.012473618 = weight(_text_:information in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012473618 = score(doc=3033,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = 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)
    0.02138294 = product of:
      0.04276588 = sum of:
        0.04276588 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04276588 = score(doc=3033,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.007812584 = product of:
  0.031250335 = sum of:
    0.010082305 = weight(_text_:information in 5565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010082305 = score(doc=5565,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = 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)
    0.021168029 = product of:
      0.042336058 = sum of:
        0.042336058 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042336058 = score(doc=5565,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.0075355554 = product of:
  0.030142222 = sum of:
    0.010082305 = weight(_text_:information in 8779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010082305 = score(doc=8779,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 8779, 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=8779)
    0.020059915 = product of:
      0.04011983 = sum of:
        0.04011983 = weight(_text_:22 in 8779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04011983 = score(doc=8779,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 8779, 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=8779)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: CAMPOS, F.: UNIMARC: state of the art on the universal format for international exchange; HOLT, B.: The maintenance of UNIMARC; WILLER, M.: UNIMARC / Authorities format; HOPKINSON, A.: CDS/ISIS as a tool for implementing UNIMARC; BERKE, S. u. M. SIPOS: The comprehensive information system of the National Széchényi Library and the Hungarian MARC format; SHRAIBERG, Y.: Application of the CDS/ISIS software package and UNIMARC format in the automated systems of the Russian National Public Library for Science and Technology and other libraries of the Russian Federation; STOKLASOVA, B.: Exchange formats in the Czech Republic: past, present and future

0.0074667614 = product of:
  0.05973409 = sum of:
    0.05973409 = weight(_text_:web in 6020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05973409 = score(doc=6020,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = 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)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.007157246 = product of:
  0.028628984 = sum of:
    0.011522634 = weight(_text_:information in 2996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011522634 = score(doc=2996,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = 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)
    0.01710635 = product of:
      0.0342127 = sum of:
        0.0342127 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0342127 = score(doc=2996,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.007157246 = product of:
  0.028628984 = sum of:
    0.011522634 = weight(_text_:information in 8865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011522634 = score(doc=8865,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = 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)
    0.01710635 = product of:
      0.0342127 = sum of:
        0.0342127 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0342127 = score(doc=8865,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Source

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

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval