Search (49 results, page 1 of 3)

0.22022277 = product of:
  0.29363036 = sum of:
    0.020812286 = weight(_text_:information in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020812286 = score(doc=4750,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 4750, 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=4750)
    0.15490833 = weight(_text_:standards in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15490833 = score(doc=4750,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.68939996 = fieldWeight in 4750, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4750)
    0.11790973 = sum of:
      0.07009536 = weight(_text_:organization in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07009536 = score(doc=4750,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.38996086 = fieldWeight in 4750, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4750)
      0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047814365 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4750, 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=4750)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Metadata schema and standards are now a part of the information landscape. Librarianship has slowly realized that MARC is only one of a proliferation of metadata standards, and that MARC has many pros and cons related to its age, original conception, and biases. Should librarianship continue to promote the MARC standard? Are there better metadata standards out there that are more robust, user-friendly, and dynamic in the organization and presentation of information? This special issue examines current initiatives that are actively incorporating MARC standards and concepts into new metadata schemata, while also predicting a future where MARC may not be the metadata schema of choice for the organization and description of information.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.6-7

0.08876588 = product of:
  0.11835451 = sum of:
    0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 3844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01699316 = score(doc=3844,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 3844, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3844)
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 3844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=3844,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 3844, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3844)
    0.023907183 = product of:
      0.047814365 = sum of:
        0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 3844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047814365 = score(doc=3844,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3844, 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=3844)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

The MARC Program of the Library of Congress, led during its formative years by the author of this entry, was a landmark in the history of automation. Technical procedures, standards, and formatting for the catalog record were experimented with and developed in modern form in this project. The project began when computers were mainframe, slow, and limited in storage. So little was known then about many aspects of automation of library information resources that the MARC project can be seen as a pioneering effort with immeasurable impact.

Date

27. 8.2011 14:22:53

Source

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

0.07625367 = product of:
  0.15250733 = sum of:
    0.12518483 = weight(_text_:standards in 4749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12518483 = score(doc=4749,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.5571193 = fieldWeight in 4749, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4749)
    0.027322493 = product of:
      0.054644987 = sum of:
        0.054644987 = weight(_text_:22 in 4749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054644987 = score(doc=4749,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4749, 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=4749)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Describes the construction of the author's Perl program, Cyril, to add vernacular Russian (Cyrillic) characters to existing MARC records. The program takes advantage of the ALA-LC standards for Romanization to create character mappings that "de-transliterate" specified MARC fields. The creation of Cyril raises both linguistic and technical issues, which are thoroughly examined. Concludes by considering the implications for cataloging and authority control standards, as we move to a multilingual, multi-script bibliographic environment.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.8-17

0.060776353 = product of:
  0.121552706 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=1250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1250, 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=1250)
    0.10953673 = weight(_text_:standards in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10953673 = score(doc=1250,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.4874794 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Metadata has taken an a new took with the advent of XML and digital resources. XML provides a new versatile structure for tagging and packaging metadata as the rapid proliferation of digital resources demands both rapidly produced descriptive data and the encoding of more types of metadata. Two emerging standards are attempting to harness these developments for library needs. The first is the Metadata Object and Description Schema (MODS), a MARC-compatible XML schema for encoding descriptive data. The second standard is the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS), a highly flexible XML schema for packaging the descriptive metadata and various other important types of metadata needed to assure the use and preservation of digital resources.

Source

Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 29(2003) no.2, S.11-15

0.05792077 = product of:
  0.11584154 = sum of:
    0.088519044 = weight(_text_:standards in 2830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088519044 = score(doc=2830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.39394283 = fieldWeight in 2830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2830)
    0.027322493 = product of:
      0.054644987 = sum of:
        0.054644987 = weight(_text_:22 in 2830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054644987 = score(doc=2830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2830, 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=2830)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This case study details the evolution of descriptive practices and standards used in the Mount Holyoke College Archives and the Five College Finding Aids Access Project, discusses the relationship of Encoded Archival Description (EAD) and the MARC standard in reference to archival description, and addresses the challenges and opportunities of transferring data from one metadata standard to another. The study demonstrates that greater standardization in archival description allows archivists to respond more effectively to technological change.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.18-27

0.05792077 = product of:
  0.11584154 = sum of:
    0.088519044 = weight(_text_:standards in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088519044 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.39394283 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
    0.027322493 = product of:
      0.054644987 = sum of:
        0.054644987 = weight(_text_:22 in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054644987 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 751, 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=751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article is a survey of representative metadata efforts comparing them to MARC 21 metadata in order to determine if new electronic formats require the development of a new set of standards. This study surveys the ongoing metadata projects in order to identify what types of metadata exist and how they are used and also compares and analyzes selected metadata elements in an attempt to illustrate how they are related to MARC 21 metadata format elements.

Date

23. 1.2007 11:22:30

0.05792077 = product of:
  0.11584154 = sum of:
    0.088519044 = weight(_text_:standards in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088519044 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.39394283 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
    0.027322493 = product of:
      0.054644987 = sum of:
        0.054644987 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054644987 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, 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=249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper reviews library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2005-06. It covers pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of cataloging; Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (FRBR); metadata and its applications and relation to Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC); cataloging tools and standards; authority control; and recruitment, training, and the changing role of catalogers.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.054227095 = product of:
  0.10845419 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 4350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=4350,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4350, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4350)
    0.093888626 = weight(_text_:standards in 4350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093888626 = score(doc=4350,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.41783947 = fieldWeight in 4350, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4350)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The MARC standard for representing catalogue records and the Z39.50 standard for locating and retrieving them have facilitated interoperability in the library domain for more than a decade. With the increasing ubiquity of XML, these standards are being superseded by MARCXML and MarcXchange for record representation and SRW/U for searching and retrieval. Service providers moving from the older standards to the newer generally need to support both old and new forms during the transition period. YAZ Proxy uses a novel approach to provide SRW/MARCXML access to the Library of Congress catalogue, by translating requests into Z39.50 and querying the older system directly. As a fringe benefit, it also greatly accelerates Z39.50 access.

Footnote

Vortrag, World Library and Information Congress: 71th IFLA General Conference and Council "Libraries - A voyage of discovery", August 14th - 18th 2005, Oslo, Norway.

Series

121 UNIMARC with Information Technology ; 065-E

0.049133226 = product of:
  0.09826645 = sum of:
    0.020812286 = weight(_text_:information in 4361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020812286 = score(doc=4361,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 4361, 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=4361)
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 4361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=4361,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 4361, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4361)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

At the IFLA conference in Glasgow, three years ago, the Information Technology Section organized a workshop on metadata. At that workshop MARCXML was presented, along with plans and expectations for its use. This paper is an update to that report. It reviews the development of an XML schema for MARC 21 and the MARCXML tool kit of transformations. The close relationship of MARCXML to the recent ISO standards work associated with MARC in XML is described. Sketches of interesting applications follow with uses that range from MARCXML as a switching format to a maintenance tool to a record communication format for new XML-based protocols.

Footnote

Vortrag, World Library and Information Congress: 71th IFLA General Conference and Council "Libraries - A voyage of discovery", August 14th - 18th 2005, Oslo, Norway.

Series

121 UNIMARC with Information Technology ; 175-E121

0.049133226 = product of:
  0.09826645 = sum of:
    0.020812286 = weight(_text_:information in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020812286 = score(doc=5423,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 5423, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5423)
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=5423,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 5423, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5423)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

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

0.043494053 = product of:
  0.08698811 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 5933) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=5933,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5933, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5933)
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 5933) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=5933,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 5933, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5933)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

As with any journey, you have to make the right connections if you want to reach your desired destination. The goal in the LIMBER project is to facilitate cross-European data analysis independent of domain, resource, language and vocabulary. The paper describes the expertise, associations, standards and architecture underlying the project deliverables designed to achieve the project's ambitious aims. - Limber (Language Independent Metadata Browsing of European Resources) is an EU (European Union) IST (Information Societies Technology) funded project that seeks to address the problems of linguistic and discipline boundaries, which, within a more integrated European environment, are becoming increasingly important. Decision-makers, researchers and journalists need to be provided with a broader, comparative picture of society across the continent; with the social science information often required to be correlated with information from domains such as environmental science, geography and health. This cross-discipline interoperability will be provided via a uniform metadata description. In addition, the provision of multilingual user interfaces and the controlled vocabulary of a multi-lingual thesaurus will make these datasets globally accessible in a range of end-user natural languages

Source

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

0.03509516 = product of:
  0.07019032 = sum of:
    0.014865918 = weight(_text_:information in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014865918 = score(doc=1467,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1467, 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=1467)
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=1467,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

XML (eXtensible Markup Language) is fast gaining favor as the universal format for data and document exchange -- in effect becoming the lingua franca of the Information Age. Currently, "library information" is at a particular disadvantage on the rapidly evolving World Wide Web. Why? Despite libraries'explorations of web catalogs, scanning projects, digital data repositories, and creation of web pages galore, there remains a digital divide. The core of libraries' data troves are stored in proprietary formats of integrated library systems (ILS) and in the complex and arcane MARC formats -- both restricted chiefly to the province of technical services and systems librarians. Even they are hard-pressed to extract and integrate this wealth of data with resources from outside this rarefied environment. Segregation of library information underlies many difficulties: producing standard bibliographic citations from MARC data, automatically creating new materials lists (including new web resources) on a particular topic, exchanging data with our vendors, and even migrating from one ILS to another. Why do we continue to hobble our potential by embracing these self-imposed limitations? Most ILSs began in libraries, which soon recognized the pitfalls of do-it-yourself solutions. Thus, we wisely anticipated the necessity for standards. However, with the advent of the web, we soon found "our" collections and a flood of new resources appearing in digital format on opposite sides of the divide. If we do not act quickly to integrate library resources with mainstream web resources, we are in grave danger of becoming marginalized

0.033194643 = product of:
  0.13277857 = sum of:
    0.13277857 = weight(_text_:standards in 2279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13277857 = score(doc=2279,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.59091425 = fieldWeight in 2279, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2279)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Standards are important for quality and interoperability in any system. Bibliographic record creation standards such as MARC 21 (Machine Readable Catalogue), CCF (Common Communication Format), UNIMARC (Universal MARC) and their local variations, are in practice all across the library community. ILMS (Integrated Library Management Systems) are using these standards for the design of databases and the creation of bibliographic records. Their use is important for uniformity of the system and bibliographic data, but there are problems when a library wants to switch over from one system to another using different standards. This paper discusses migration from one record standard to another, mapping of data and related issues. Data exported from CDS/ISIS CCF based records to KOHA MARC 21 based records are discussed as a case study. This methodology, with few modifications, can be applied for migration of data in other bibliographicformats too. Freeware tools can be utilized for migration.

0.03154151 = product of:
  0.06308302 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 3918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=3918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3918)
    0.042484205 = product of:
      0.08496841 = sum of:
        0.08496841 = weight(_text_:organization in 3918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08496841 = score(doc=3918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.47270393 = fieldWeight in 3918, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3918)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

0.029806487 = product of:
  0.059612975 = sum of:
    0.015353453 = weight(_text_:information in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015353453 = score(doc=3005,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1734784 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
    0.044259522 = weight(_text_:standards in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044259522 = score(doc=3005,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19697142 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

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

Source

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

0.023472156 = product of:
  0.093888626 = sum of:
    0.093888626 = weight(_text_:standards in 5437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093888626 = score(doc=5437,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.41783947 = fieldWeight in 5437, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5437)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to raise and address a number of issues pertaining to the conversion of Common Communication Format (CCF) into MARC21. In this era of global resource sharing, exchange of bibliographic records from one system to another is imperative in today's library communities. Instead of using a single standard to create machine-readable catalogue records, more than 20 standards have emerged and are being used by different institutions. Because of these variations in standards, sharing of resources and transfer of data from one system to another among the institutions locally and globally has become a significant problem. Addressing this problem requires keeping in mind that countries such as India and others in southeast Asia are using the CCF as a standard for creating bibliographic cataloguing records. This paper describes a way to map the bibliographic catalogue records from CCF to MARC21, although 100% mapping is not possible. In addition, the paper describes an experimental approach that enumerates problems that may occur during the mapping of records/exchanging of records and how these problems can be overcome.

0.023472156 = product of:
  0.093888626 = sum of:
    0.093888626 = weight(_text_:standards in 5441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093888626 = score(doc=5441,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.41783947 = fieldWeight in 5441, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5441)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Over the past few years there has been a significant amount of work in the area of cataloging internet resources, primarily using new metadata standards like the Dublin Core, but there has been little work on applying new data description formats like SGML and XML to traditional cataloging practices. What little work has been done in the area of using SGML and XML for traditional bibliographic description has primarily been based on the concept of converting MARC tagging into XML tagging. I suggest that, rather than attempting to convert existing MARC tagging into a new syntax based on SGML or XML, a more fruitful possibility is to return to the cataloging standards and describe their inherent structure, learning from how MARC has been used successfully in modern OPAC while attempting to avoid MARC's rigid field-based restrictions.

0.022354867 = product of:
  0.044709735 = sum of:
    0.01151509 = weight(_text_:information in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01151509 = score(doc=1169,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1301088 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
    0.033194643 = weight(_text_:standards in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033194643 = score(doc=1169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.14772856 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

T.1: Today's thesauri are mostly electronic tools, having moved on from the paper-based era when thesaurus standards were first developed. They are built and maintained with the support of software and need to integrate with other software, such as search engines and content management systems. Whereas in the past thesauri were designed for information professionals trained in indexing and searching, today there is a demand for vocabularies that untrained users will find to be intuitive. ISO 25964 makes the transition needed for the world of electronic information management. However, part 1 retains the assumption that human intellect is usually involved in the selection of indexing terms and in the selection of search terms. If both the indexer and the searcher are guided to choose the same term for the same concept, then relevant documents will be retrieved. This is the main principle underlying thesaurus design, even though a thesaurus built for human users may also be applied in situations where computers make the choices. Efficient exchange of data is a vital component of thesaurus management and exploitation. Hence the inclusion in this standard of recommendations for exchange formats and protocols. Adoption of these will facilitate interoperability between thesaurus management systems and the other computer applications, such as indexing and retrieval systems, that will utilize the data. Thesauri are typically used in post-coordinate retrieval systems, but may also be applied to hierarchical directories, pre-coordinate indexes and classification systems. Increasingly, thesaurus applications need to mesh with others, such as automatic categorization schemes, free-text search systems, etc. Part 2 of ISO 25964 describes additional types of structured vocabulary and gives recommendations to enable interoperation of the vocabularies at all stages of the information storage and retrieval process.
T.2: The ability to identify and locate relevant information among vast collections and other resources is a major and pressing challenge today. Several different types of vocabulary are in use for this purpose. Some of the most widely used vocabularies were designed a hundred years ago and have been evolving steadily. A different generation of vocabularies is now emerging, designed to exploit the electronic media more effectively. A good understanding of the previous generation is still essential for effective access to collections indexed with them. An important object of ISO 25964 as a whole is to support data exchange and other forms of interoperability in circumstances in which more than one structured vocabulary is applied within one retrieval system or network. Sometimes one vocabulary has to be mapped to another, and it is important to understand both the potential and the limitations of such mappings. In other systems, a thesaurus is mapped to a classification scheme, or an ontology to a thesaurus. Comprehensive interoperability needs to cover the whole range of vocabulary types, whether young or old. Concepts in different vocabularies are related only in that they have the same or similar meaning. However, the meaning can be found in a number of different aspects within each particular type of structured vocabulary: - within terms or captions selected in different languages; - in the notation assigned indicating a place within a larger hierarchy; - in the definition, scope notes, history notes and other notes that explain the significance of that concept; and - in explicit relationships to other concepts or entities within the same vocabulary. In order to create mappings from one structured vocabulary to another it is first necessary to understand, within the context of each different type of structured vocabulary, the significance and relative importance of each of the different elements in defining the meaning of that particular concept. ISO 25964-1 describes the key characteristics of thesauri along with additional advice on best practice. ISO 25964-2 focuses on other types of vocabulary and does not attempt to cover all aspects of good practice. It concentrates on those aspects which need to be understood if one of the vocabularies is to work effectively alongside one or more of the others. Recognizing that a new standard cannot be applied to some existing vocabularies, this part of ISO 25964 provides informative description alongside the recommendations, the aim of which is to enable users and system developers to interpret and implement the existing vocabularies effectively. The remainder of ISO 25964-2 deals with the principles and practicalities of establishing mappings between vocabularies.

Issue

Pt.1: Thesauri for information retrieval - Pt.2: Interoperability with other vocabularies.

0.020450171 = product of:
  0.040900342 = sum of:
    0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01699316 = score(doc=2848,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
    0.023907183 = product of:
      0.047814365 = sum of:
        0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047814365 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2848, 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=2848)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article proposes a schema for meta-information about MARC that can express at a fairly comprehensive level the syntactic and semantic aspects of MARC formats in XML, including not only rules but also all texts and examples that are conveyed by MARC documentation. It can be thought of as an XML version of the MARC or UNIMARC manuals, for both machine and human usage. The article explains how such a schema can be the central piece of a more complete framework, to be used in conjunction with "slim" record formats, providing a rich environment for the automated processing of bibliographic data.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.131-137

0.019363541 = product of:
  0.077454165 = sum of:
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 5670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=5670,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 5670, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5670)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The IFLA standard for authority data, UNIMARC authorities format, is described in the light of developments of IFLA standards in the field of authority files, IFLA's activities in promoting the exchange of name authority records within the program of Universal Bibliographic Control and the design of the UNIMARC format for bibliographic records that established principles for its structure and design. The second revised and enlarged edition, UNIMARC Manual: Authorities Format, is described. Particular attention is paid to the methods for expressing relationships between different forms of headings, and relationships between different languages and scripts of headings. The maintenance of the format and sources for its revision are described.