Search (99 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  • × year_i:[1990 TO 2000}
  1. Boßmeyer, C.: UNIMARC und MAB : Strukturunterschiede und Kompatibilitätsfragen (1995) 0.01 
    0.008661374 = product of:
  0.086613744 = sum of:
    0.043306872 = weight(_text_:und in 2368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043306872 = score(doc=2368,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06381599 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.67862105 = fieldWeight in 2368, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2368)
    0.043306872 = weight(_text_:und in 2368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043306872 = score(doc=2368,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06381599 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.67862105 = fieldWeight in 2368, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2368)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)
    Source
    Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 42(1995) H.5, S.465-480
  2. Gradmann, S.: MAB2, UNIMARC, USMARC : strategische Überlegungen zur Formatdiskussion (1995) 0.00 
    0.0043755663 = product of:
  0.04375566 = sum of:
    0.02187783 = weight(_text_:und in 2369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02187783 = score(doc=2369,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06381599 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 2369, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2369)
    0.02187783 = weight(_text_:und in 2369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02187783 = score(doc=2369,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06381599 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 2369, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2369)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)
    Source
    Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 42(1995) H.5, S.481-489
  3. Duchemin, P.-Y.: BN OPALINE : the map database in the Department des Cartes et Plans de la Bibliothèque Nationale: history (1993) 0.00 
    0.0034261425 = product of:
  0.034261424 = sum of:
    0.027601978 = weight(_text_:des in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027601978 = score(doc=916,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.079736836 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.34616345 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
    0.006659447 = weight(_text_:in in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006659447 = score(doc=916,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)
    Abstract
    Provides a brief history of the Department des Cartes et Plans de la Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris before going on to discuss the computerization of its collections. Describes the computer format for cartographic documents which the Department has developed, INTERMARC(C), which is an extension of INTERMARC, the French version of MARC. Then discusses BN-OPALINE, the Department's computerized system for cartographic materials, and its functionality. Finally looks to the future and the Department's hope to create a national union catalogue of cartographic documents
  4. Byrne, D.J.: MARC manual : understanding and using MARC records (1998) 0.00 
    0.003046978 = product of:
  0.03046978 = sum of:
    0.00706341 = weight(_text_:in in 6077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00706341 = score(doc=6077,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 6077, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6077)
    0.023406371 = product of:
      0.046812743 = sum of:
        0.046812743 = weight(_text_:22 in 6077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046812743 = score(doc=6077,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6077, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6077)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)
    Date
    2. 8.2001 16:22:33
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Library review 48(1999) nos.3/4, S.204-205 (K.V. Trickey)
  5. Caplan, P.; Guenther, R.: Metadata for Internet resources : the Dublin Core Metadata Elements Set and its mapping to USMARC (1996) 0.00 
    0.002677668 = product of:
  0.026776679 = sum of:
    0.00470894 = weight(_text_:in in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00470894 = score(doc=2408,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 2408, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2408)
    0.022067739 = product of:
      0.044135477 = sum of:
        0.044135477 = weight(_text_:22 in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044135477 = score(doc=2408,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)
    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
  6. Murphy, C.: Curriculum-enhanced MARC (CEMARC) : a new cataloging format for school librarians (1995) 0.00 
    0.002644588 = product of:
  0.02644588 = sum of:
    0.0071366085 = weight(_text_:in in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071366085 = score(doc=5100,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 5100, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5100)
    0.019309273 = product of:
      0.038618546 = sum of:
        0.038618546 = weight(_text_:22 in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038618546 = score(doc=5100,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)
    Abstract
    Briefly summarizes the problems encountered when attempting to use the USMARC cataloguing format in US school libraries and describes the development of CEMARC format by the Northwest Ohio Educational Technology Foundation (NWOET), which addresses the main problems by: offering sata entry guidelines for a minimum USMARC standard in order to clarify inconsistencies in application; and by suggesting enhancements and new fields that go beyond the USMARC standard. Concludes with brief notes on early CEMARC implementation
    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
  7. Ranta, J.A.: Queens Borough Public Library's Guidelines for cataloging community information (1996) 0.00 
    0.002286704 = product of:
  0.022867039 = sum of:
    0.009213322 = weight(_text_:in in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009213322 = score(doc=6523,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 6523, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6523)
    0.013653717 = product of:
      0.027307434 = sum of:
        0.027307434 = weight(_text_:22 in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027307434 = score(doc=6523,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)
    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
  8. Weber, L.B.: Reading formatting MARC AMC (1990) 0.00 
    0.0022263695 = product of:
  0.022263695 = sum of:
    0.006659447 = weight(_text_:in in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006659447 = score(doc=484,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 484, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=484)
    0.015604248 = product of:
      0.031208497 = sum of:
        0.031208497 = weight(_text_:22 in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031208497 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)
    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
  9. Hein, M.: Aesthetics and quality in format conversion (1996) 0.00 
    0.0020854801 = product of:
  0.020854801 = sum of:
    0.012698677 = weight(_text_:der in 4893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012698677 = score(doc=4893,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06431698 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.19743896 = fieldWeight in 4893, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4893)
    0.0081561245 = weight(_text_:in in 4893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0081561245 = score(doc=4893,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 4893, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4893)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)
    Abstract
    The constant change of technology produces a shorter life cycle for electronic formats than for conventional formats. In libraries and archives, information may have a longer life cycle than elsewhere. The technical problems of electronic format conversion may become overwhelming. Discusses aesthetics and quality assurance issues
    Series
    Veröffentlichungen der Universitätsbibliothek Essen; 20
    Source
    Electronic documents and information: from preservation to access; Festschrift in honor of Patricia Battin. 18th International Symposium, 23.-26.10.1995. Ed.: A.H. Helal et al
  10. UNIMARC and CDS/ISIS : Proceedings of the Workshops held in Budapest, 21.-22. June 1993 and Barcelona, 26. August 1993 (1994) 0.00 
    0.0020790326 = product of:
  0.020790325 = sum of:
    0.0071366085 = weight(_text_:in in 8779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071366085 = score(doc=8779,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 8779, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8779)
    0.013653717 = product of:
      0.027307434 = sum of:
        0.027307434 = weight(_text_:22 in 8779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027307434 = score(doc=8779,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)
    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
  11. Gopinath, M.A.: Standardization for resource sharing databases (1995) 0.00 
    0.0020313188 = product of:
  0.020313188 = sum of:
    0.00470894 = weight(_text_:in in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00470894 = score(doc=4414,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 4414, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4414)
    0.015604248 = product of:
      0.031208497 = sum of:
        0.031208497 = weight(_text_:22 in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031208497 = score(doc=4414,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)
    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
  12. Bourne, R.: MARC harmonization : progress and problems (1997) 0.00 
    0.0020313188 = product of:
  0.020313188 = sum of:
    0.00470894 = weight(_text_:in in 873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00470894 = score(doc=873,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 873, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=873)
    0.015604248 = product of:
      0.031208497 = sum of:
        0.031208497 = weight(_text_:22 in 873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031208497 = score(doc=873,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 873, 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=873)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)
    Abstract
    The British Library have conformed their decision to go ahead with the harmonization programme between the US and UKMARC formats, and although the final date for the changeover is still not yet, they expect the whole process to be over in 2 years, with one further year after that when they will support UKMARC. Describes the progress made so far, and problems that remain to be solved
    Source
    LASER link. 1997, Spring/Summer, S.22-24
  13. Mishra, K.S.: Bibliographic databases and exchange formats (1997) 0.00 
    0.0020313188 = product of:
  0.020313188 = sum of:
    0.00470894 = weight(_text_:in in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00470894 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 1757, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1757)
    0.015604248 = product of:
      0.031208497 = sum of:
        0.031208497 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031208497 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)
    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
  14. Merwe, H.C.J. van der: SAMARC versus USMARC and UNIMARC : a position paper (1997) 0.00 
    0.0019358125 = product of:
  0.019358125 = sum of:
    0.012698677 = weight(_text_:der in 890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012698677 = score(doc=890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06431698 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.19743896 = fieldWeight in 890, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=890)
    0.006659447 = weight(_text_:in in 890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006659447 = score(doc=890,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 890, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=890)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)
    Abstract
    The original purpose of the MARC format was to specify the formatting of data to be exchanged electronically. Compares the SAMARC format with USMARC and UNIMARC, both well established and widely used in the International community, in terms of scope, updating mechanisms, completeness and the current status of the formats. Recommends conversion to USMARC given the fact that SAMARC is hampered by an inadequate infrastructure which makes it unresponsive to immediate needs and the UNIMARC is still being developed. Discusses the benefits and the negative aspects of converting to USMARC
  15. Spicher, K.M.: ¬The development of the MARC format (1996) 0.00 
    0.0018247952 = product of:
  0.01824795 = sum of:
    0.011111342 = weight(_text_:der in 5574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011111342 = score(doc=5574,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06431698 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.17275909 = fieldWeight in 5574, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5574)
    0.0071366085 = weight(_text_:in in 5574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071366085 = score(doc=5574,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 5574, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5574)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)
    Abstract
    The use of computerized cataloguing data requires a commitment on the part of libraries to the standardization of data elements and record formats. Early computerized formats were initiated by several research libraries to serve the needs of particular university systems. In developing MARC, the LoC drew on the experiences of these libraries in establishing a standard acceptable to the research library community for the interchange of bibliographic data. Discusses early computerized formats influencing MARC, the origins of the MARC Pilot Project, and design factors influencing the evolution of the format through MARC2. Research was based on primary sources documenting the early history of MARC, including unpublished documents in the LoC archives
    Theme
    Geschichte der Kataloge
  16. Crook, M.: Barbara Tillett discusses cataloging rules and conceptual models (1996) 0.00 
    0.001777404 = product of:
  0.01777404 = sum of:
    0.0041203224 = weight(_text_:in in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0041203224 = score(doc=7683,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 7683, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7683)
    0.013653717 = product of:
      0.027307434 = sum of:
        0.027307434 = weight(_text_:22 in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027307434 = score(doc=7683,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)
    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. Aliprand, J.M.: Linking of alternate graphic representation in USMARC authority records (1993) 0.00 
    6.229343E-4 = product of:
  0.012458686 = sum of:
    0.012458686 = weight(_text_:in in 8341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012458686 = score(doc=8341,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.31810042 = fieldWeight in 8341, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8341)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)
    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
  18. Noordermeer, T.: UseMARCON, a user controlled generic MARC converter (1998) 0.00 
    5.450675E-4 = product of:
  0.01090135 = sum of:
    0.01090135 = weight(_text_:in in 5174) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01090135 = score(doc=5174,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.27833787 = fieldWeight in 5174, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5174)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)
    Abstract
    With 50 different MARC formats in use globally and 10 employed in European Union national libraries problems are created in the international supply of cataloguing data and the quality of records. UseMARCON is a cooperative project of Dutch, Portuguese, UK and German national libraries using software from Jouve Systems d'Information in France to produce a generic conversion program capable of translating bibliographic records in any ISO2709 format into any other ISO2709 format using UNIMARC as a switching format. Outlines what is required in the process of conversion; describes the functionality of the software; and lists the MARC formats with which UseMARCON can operate. The project was finished in 1997
  19. Fattahi, R.: ¬A uniform approach to the indexing of cataloguing data in online library systems (1997) 0.00 
    5.297558E-4 = product of:
  0.010595115 = sum of:
    0.010595115 = weight(_text_:in in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010595115 = score(doc=131,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.27051896 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)
    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. Coetzee, H.S.: Development of SAMARC : South African format for the exchange of machine readable bibliographic descriptions (1997) 0.00 
    5.2647555E-4 = product of:
  0.010529511 = sum of:
    0.010529511 = weight(_text_:in in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010529511 = score(doc=889,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.26884392 = fieldWeight in 889, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=889)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)
    Abstract
    The first edition of 'SAMARC: South African format for the exchange of machine readable descriptions' was published in 1982. Since then a number of important developments in various fields made it essential that the format be updated and revised. A draft second edition was made available in 1993 and the SAMARC manual was published in 1995 by the State Library. In Apr 1997 it was however decided by the South African library community to change to USMARC

Authors

Types

  • a 81
  • m 8
  • s 6
  • l 3
  • r 2
  • ? 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications