Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × language_ss:"f"
  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Witt, M.: Evolution du format UNIMARC (1997) 0.00
    0.004327123 = product of:
      0.03028986 = sum of:
        0.03028986 = weight(_text_:with in 920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03028986 = score(doc=920,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.32280442 = fieldWeight in 920, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=920)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Abstract
    Since publication in 1977 of the first version of UNIMARC, conceived as an international exchange format for countries using different forms of MARC, it has been widely adopted as a national format. In France the National Library (BNF) uses UNIMARC for its bibliographic records, though with some differences from the official IFLA version. This. together with promotion by central government, has led to adoption of UNIMARC by most libraries. A permanent committee manages the development of UNIMARC, introducing regular changes, updates and guidelines. The BNF, however, has recently introduced further modifications and is working on a UNIMARC version of the INTERMARC authority list, without consulting French libraries. The French Librarians Association is accordingsly promoting BNF collaboration with UNIMARC users on future developments
  2. Duclos-Faure, D.: Format d'echange des donnees locales : ou en sommes-nous? (1997) 0.00
    0.0035330812 = product of:
      0.024731567 = sum of:
        0.024731567 = weight(_text_:with in 888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024731567 = score(doc=888,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.2635687 = fieldWeight in 888, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=888)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Abstract
    Since Sep 1996 a group with representatives from the French National Library (BNF), French Joint Catalogue (CCF), Directorate of Scientific and Technical Information (DISTNB), Directorate of Reading (DL) and the Higher Education Bibliography Agency (ABES) has been working on establishing a format for exchanging local data which will accomodtae the needs of all users; conform to international standards and take account of new technological tools (Z39.50-1995). Using pre-existing formats with UNIMARC as the basis, the new format will allow selection of documents by different location criteria, establish conditions of communication and manage interlibrary loan. To date fields have been defined for data on location and management of copies, and for descriptive data on copies
  3. Bourdon, F.: Qu'est-ce qu'un format d'autorité? (1997) 0.00
    0.0035330812 = product of:
      0.024731567 = sum of:
        0.024731567 = weight(_text_:with in 902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024731567 = score(doc=902,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.2635687 = fieldWeight in 902, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=902)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Abstract
    Authority records complement bibliographic records, providing cataloguers with essential subject heading and related information. At present there is no international format standard comparable to ISBD for bibliographic records, though IFLA and the International Archives Council have set up working groups. The essential data form comprises of subject heading, structure, homonyms, with supplementary supporting information. In France MARC formats are most widely used, e.g. UNIMARC(A) for authority records and (B) for bibliographic. The National Library (BNF) is introducing new cataloguing software based on the reorganisation of its authotity files, using integrated INTERMARC. As an experiments, readers will for the first time have access to authority files, thus enriching, completing and clarifying the bibliographic records
  4. Beaudiquez, M.: ¬L'¬avenir des formats de communication (1996) 0.00
    0.0030283553 = product of:
      0.021198487 = sum of:
        0.021198487 = weight(_text_:with in 92) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021198487 = score(doc=92,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.22591603 = fieldWeight in 92, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=92)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Abstract
    Over the last decade, the gap between North and South in relation to formats has increasingly limited development of international programmes such as UBC and UAP. At present the need to review formats in the light of network developments such as the Internet is urgent. Presentations covered the Web, limitations of traditional formats eg. MARC, Internet formats eg. Z39.50 and SGML, and multimedia formats, with examples of prototypes for converting traditional systems to international standards. The Internet has defined a new field of action for librarians. It is essential that developing countries share the experience of industrialised countries, with support from governments and collaboration from international organisations, in ensuring harmonious progress to universal compatibility
  5. Lupovici, C.: ¬L'¬information secondaire du document primaire : format MARC ou SGML? (1997) 0.00
    0.0024982654 = product of:
      0.017487857 = sum of:
        0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017487857 = score(doc=892,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 892, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=892)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Abstract
    Secondary information, e.g. MARC based bibliographic records, comprises structured data for identifying, tagging, retrieving and management of primary documents. SGML, the standard format for coding content and structure of primary documents, was introduced in 1986 as a publishing tool but is now being applied to bibliographic records. SGML now comprises standard definitions (DTD) for books, serials, articles and mathematical formulae. A simplified version (HTML) is used for Web pages. Pilot projects to develop SGML as a standard for bibliographic exchange include the Dublin Core, listing 13 descriptive elements for Internet documents; the French GRISELI programme using SGML for exchanging grey literature and US experiments on reformatting USMARC for use with SGML-based records
  6. Passin-Aguirre, N.; Leresche, F.: ¬Le format INTERMARC integre : futur format de travail de la BNF (1997) 0.00
    0.0024982654 = product of:
      0.017487857 = sum of:
        0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017487857 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 915, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=915)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Abstract
    The French National Library (NBF) has developed 2 new versions of INTERMARC, (A) and (B), to standardise cataloguing procedures and enrich bibliographic description and access. The bibliographic description format (B) accords with existing ISBD and can be used for all types of documents, allowing inclusion of specific characteristics and addition of new links. The format for editing records (A) eliminates redundancies and enriches links between fields. Both will be used as reference formats in the new Information System
  7. Provansal, A.: Neuf mois après (1997) 0.00
    0.0024982654 = product of:
      0.017487857 = sum of:
        0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017487857 = score(doc=917,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 917, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=917)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Abstract
    Electronic documents are creating new services and generating new demands, with consequent impacts on the means of transmitting knowledge, international standards and democratisation of access. Universal bibliographic control depends on common rules for bibliographic description and format to ensure compatibility and exchange. In addition to ISBN and UNIMARC for cataloguing, Z39.50 allows searching of heterogeneous databases and SGML makes cataloguing in publication a reality. Such developments must be based on knowledge of what users want and their real search and consultation practices, not what the system devisers have the technology to create