Search (101 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Ranta, J.A.: Queens Borough Public Library's Guidelines for cataloging community information (1996) 0.03 
    0.03198309 = product of:
  0.07995772 = sum of:
    0.0067426977 = weight(_text_:a in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067426977 = score(doc=6523,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 6523, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6523)
    0.07321502 = sum of:
      0.02923913 = weight(_text_:information in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02923913 = score(doc=6523,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = 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)
      0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043975897 = score(doc=6523,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
    Type
    a
  2. Crook, M.: Barbara Tillett discusses cataloging rules and conceptual models (1996) 0.03 
    0.027944041 = product of:
  0.0698601 = sum of:
    0.0067426977 = weight(_text_:a in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067426977 = score(doc=7683,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 7683, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7683)
    0.0631174 = sum of:
      0.019141505 = weight(_text_:information in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019141505 = score(doc=7683,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = 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)
      0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043975897 = score(doc=7683,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
    Type
    a
  3. Weber, R.: "Functional requirements for bibliographic records" und Regelwerksentwicklung (2001) 0.02 
    0.021404605 = product of:
  0.05351151 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 6838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=6838,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 6838, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6838)
    0.043975897 = product of:
      0.087951794 = sum of:
        0.087951794 = weight(_text_:22 in 6838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.087951794 = score(doc=6838,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6838, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6838)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 13(2001) H.3, S.20-22
    Type
    a
  4. Mönch, C.; Aalberg, T.: Automatic conversion from MARC to FRBR (2003) 0.02 
    0.02024008 = product of:
  0.050600197 = sum of:
    0.01129502 = weight(_text_:a in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01129502 = score(doc=2422,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 2422, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2422)
    0.039305177 = sum of:
      0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007893822 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2422, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2422)
      0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031411353 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2422, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2422)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Catalogs have for centuries been the main tool that enabled users to search for items in a library by author, title, or subject. A catalog can be interpreted as a set of bibliographic records, where each record acts as a surrogate for a publication. Every record describes a specific publication and contains the data that is used to create the indexes of search systems and the information that is presented to the user. Bibliographic records are often captured and exchanged by the use of the MARC format. Although there are numerous rdquodialectsrdquo of the MARC format in use, they are usually crafted on the same basis and are interoperable with each other -to a certain extent. The data model of a MARC-based catalog, however, is rdquo[...] extremely non-normalized with excessive replication of datardquo [1]. For instance, a literary work that exists in numerous editions and translations is likely to yield a large result set because each edition or translation is represented by an individual record, that is unrelated to other records that describe the same work.
    Source
    Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 7th European Conference, proceedings / ECDL 2003, Trondheim, Norway, August 17-22, 2003
    Type
    a
  5. Tennant, R.: ¬A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty-first century (2004) 0.02 
    0.019553987 = product of:
  0.04888497 = sum of:
    0.013347079 = weight(_text_:a in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013347079 = score(doc=2845,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.24964198 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
    0.03553789 = product of:
      0.07107578 = sum of:
        0.07107578 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07107578 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2845, 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=2845)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The current library bibliographic infrastructure was constructed in the early days of computers - before the Web, XML, and a variety of other technological advances that now offer new opportunities. General requirements of a modern metadata infrastructure for libraries are identified, including such qualities as versatility, extensibility, granularity, and openness. A new kind of metadata infrastructure is then proposed that exhibits at least some of those qualities. Some key challenges that must be overcome to implement a change of this magnitude are identified.
    Date
    9.12.2005 19:22:38
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.175-181
    Type
    a
  6. Coyle, K.: Future considerations : the functional library systems record (2004) 0.02 
    0.015390465 = product of:
  0.03847616 = sum of:
    0.013347079 = weight(_text_:a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013347079 = score(doc=562,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.24964198 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.025129084 = product of:
      0.050258167 = sum of:
        0.050258167 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050258167 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The paper performs a thought experiment on the concept of a record based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records and library system functions, and concludes that if we want to develop a functional bibliographic record we need to do it within the context of a flexible, functional library systems record structure. The article suggests a new way to look at the library systems record that would allow libraries to move forward in terms of technology but also in terms of serving library users.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.166-174
    Type
    a
  7. Hoffmann, L.: ¬Die Globalisierung macht vor der Katalogisierung nicht Halt : Mit AACR2 zum Global Player? (2003) 0.02 
    0.015289003 = product of:
  0.038222507 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 1544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=1544,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1544, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1544)
    0.031411353 = product of:
      0.06282271 = sum of:
        0.06282271 = weight(_text_:22 in 1544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06282271 = score(doc=1544,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1544, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1544)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 3.2016 12:15:46
    Type
    a
  8. Aalberg, T.; Haugen, F.B.; Husby, O.: ¬A Tool for Converting from MARC to FRBR (2006) 0.01 
    0.013840953 = product of:
  0.03460238 = sum of:
    0.012614433 = weight(_text_:a in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012614433 = score(doc=2425,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 2425, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2425)
    0.021987949 = product of:
      0.043975897 = sum of:
        0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043975897 = score(doc=2425,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2425, 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=2425)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The FRBR model is by many considered to be an important contribution to the next generation of bibliographic catalogues, but a major challenge for the library community is how to use this model on already existing MARC-based bibliographic catalogues. This problem requires a solution for the interpretation and conversion of MARC records, and a tool for this kind of conversion is developed as a part of the Norwegian BIBSYS FRBR project. The tool is based on a systematic approach to the interpretation and conversion process and is designed to be adaptable to the rules applied in different catalogues.
    Source
    Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006
    Type
    a
  9. Yee, M.M.: New perspectives on the shared cataloging environment and a MARC 21 shopping list (2004) 0.01 
    0.013134009 = product of:
  0.03283502 = sum of:
    0.00770594 = weight(_text_:a in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00770594 = score(doc=132,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 132, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=132)
    0.025129084 = product of:
      0.050258167 = sum of:
        0.050258167 = weight(_text_:22 in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050258167 = score(doc=132,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 132, 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=132)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  10. Oehlschläger, S.: Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme : Aus der 46. Sitzung am 21. und 22. April 2004 im Bibliotheksservice-Zentrum Baden-Württemberg in Konstanz (2004) 0.01 
    0.011959012 = product of:
  0.02989753 = sum of:
    0.0023839036 = weight(_text_:a in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0023839036 = score(doc=2434,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.044588212 = fieldWeight in 2434, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2434)
    0.027513625 = sum of:
      0.005525676 = weight(_text_:information in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005525676 = score(doc=2434,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.06788416 = fieldWeight in 2434, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2434)
      0.021987949 = weight(_text_:22 in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021987949 = score(doc=2434,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2434, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2434)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    - Projekt Umstieg auf internationale Formate und Regelwerke (MARC21, AACR2) Das Projekt Umstieg auf internationale Formate und Regelwerke (MARC21, AACR2) stand zum Zeitpunkt der Sitzung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft kurz vor seinem Abschluss. Im Rahmen der Veranstaltung des Standardisierungsausschusses beim 2. Leipziger Kongress für Information und Bibliothek wurden die wesentlichen Projektergebnisse vorgestellt. Aufgrund der vorliegenden Informationen gehen die Mitglieder der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme davon aus, dass das finanzielle Argument bei der anstehenden Entscheidung nicht mehr im Vordergrund stehen kann. Auch wenn davon ausgegangen wird, dass eine klare Umstiegsentscheidung durch den Standardisierungsausschuss derzeit politisch nicht durchsetzbar sei, sehen die Mitglieder der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme die Entwicklung durch die Projektergebnisse positiv. Durch die Diskussion wurden Defizite des deutschen Regelwerks und der Verbundpraxis offen gelegt und verschiedene Neuerungen angestoßen. Zur Verbesserung des Datentausches untereinander sehen die Verbundzentralen unabhängig von einer Entscheidung des Standardisierungsausschusses die Notwendigkeit, ihre Datenbestände zu homogenisieren und Hierarchien abzubauen bzw. die Verknüpfungsstrukturen zu vereinfachen. Auch die Entwicklung der Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) muss in diese Überlegungen einbezogen werden. Die Formate müssen dahingehend entwickelt werden, dass alle relevanten Informationen im Titelsatz transportiert werden können. Es wird eine Konvergenz von Regelwerk und Format angestrebt.
    Type
    a
  11. Lee, S.; Jacob, E.K.: ¬An integrated approach to metadata interoperability : construction of a conceptual structure between MARC and FRBR (2011) 0.01 
    0.011542848 = product of:
  0.028857121 = sum of:
    0.0100103095 = weight(_text_:a in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0100103095 = score(doc=302,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 302, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=302)
    0.018846812 = product of:
      0.037693623 = sum of:
        0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037693623 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 302, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=302)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC) is currently the most broadly used bibliographic standard for encoding and exchanging bibliographic data. However, MARC may not fully support representation of the dynamic nature and semantics of digital resources because of its rigid and single-layered linear structure. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model, which is designed to overcome the problems of MARC, does not provide sufficient data elements and adopts a predetermined hierarchy. A flexible structure for bibliographic data with detailed data elements is needed. Integrating MARC format with the hierarchical structure of FRBR is one approach to meet this need. The purpose of this research is to propose an approach that can facilitate interoperability between MARC and FRBR by providing a conceptual structure that can function as a mediator between MARC data elements and FRBR attributes.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  12. Riva, P.: Mapping MARC 21 linking entry fields to FRBR and Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (2004) 0.01 
    0.010370068 = product of:
  0.02592517 = sum of:
    0.007078358 = weight(_text_:a in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007078358 = score(doc=136,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
    0.018846812 = product of:
      0.037693623 = sum of:
        0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037693623 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Bibliographic relationships have taken on even greater importance in the context of ongoing efforts to integrate concepts from the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) into cataloging codes and database structures. In MARC 21, the linking entry fields are a major mechanism for expressing relationships between bibliographic records. Taxonomies of bibliographic relationships have been proposed by Tillett, with an extension by Smiraglia, and in FRBR itself. The present exercise is to provide a detailed bidirectional mapping of the MARC 21 linking fields to these two schemes. The correspondence of the Tillett taxonomic divisions to the MARC categorization of the linking fields as chronological, horizontal, or vertical is examined as well. Application of the findings to MARC format development and system functionality is discussed.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  13. Wisser, K.M.; O'Brien Roper, J.: Maximizing metadata : exploring the EAD-MARC relationship (2003) 0.01 
    0.010135241 = product of:
  0.025338102 = sum of:
    0.009632425 = weight(_text_:a in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009632425 = score(doc=154,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
    0.015705677 = product of:
      0.031411353 = sum of:
        0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031411353 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Encoded Archival Description (EAD) has provided a new way to approach manuscript and archival collection representation. A review of previous representational practices and problems highlights the benefits of using EAD. This new approach should be considered a partner rather than an adversary in the access providing process. Technological capabilities now allow for multiple metadata schemas to be employed in the creation of the finding aid. Crosswalks allow for MARC records to be generated from the detailed encoding of an EAD finding aid. In the process of creating these crosswalks and detailed encoding, EAD has generated more changes in traditional processes and procedures than originally imagined. The North Carolina State University (NCSU) Libraries sought to test the process of crosswalking EAD to MARC, investigating how this process used technology as well as changed physical procedures. By creating a complex and indepth EAD template for finding aids, with accompanying related encoding analogs embedded within the element structure, MARC records were generated that required minor editing and revision for inclusion in the NCSU Libraries OPAC. The creation of this bridge between EAD and MARC has stimulated theoretical discussions about the role of collaboration, technology, and expertise in the ongoing struggle to maximize access to our collections. While this study is a only a first attempt at harnessing this potential, a presentation of the tensions, struggles, and successes provides illumination to some of the larger issues facing special collections today.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  14. Croissant, C.R.: MARC21 und die anglo-amerikanische Katalogisierungspraxis (2004) 0.01 
    0.009173402 = product of:
  0.022933504 = sum of:
    0.004086692 = weight(_text_:a in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004086692 = score(doc=1764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 1764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1764)
    0.018846812 = product of:
      0.037693623 = sum of:
        0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037693623 = score(doc=1764,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1764, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1764)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    13. 8.2004 21:22:06
    Type
    a
  15. Leazer, G.H.: ¬A conceptual schema for the control of bibliographic works (1994) 0.01 
    0.007831501 = product of:
  0.019578751 = sum of:
    0.0127425 = weight(_text_:a in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0127425 = score(doc=3033,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.23833402 = fieldWeight in 3033, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3033)
    0.006836252 = product of:
      0.013672504 = sum of:
        0.013672504 = weight(_text_:information in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013672504 = score(doc=3033,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
    Type
    a
  16. Behrens-Neumann, R.: Aus der 56. Sitzung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme am 23. April 2009 in Wien : ein Bericht (2009) 0.01 
    0.0076445015 = product of:
  0.019111253 = sum of:
    0.0034055763 = weight(_text_:a in 3041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0034055763 = score(doc=3041,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 3041, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3041)
    0.015705677 = product of:
      0.031411353 = sum of:
        0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 3041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031411353 = score(doc=3041,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3041, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3041)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 8.2009 13:11:01
    Type
    a
  17. Kartus, E.: Beyond MARC : is it really possible? (1995) 0.01 
    0.0073474604 = product of:
  0.01836865 = sum of:
    0.009437811 = weight(_text_:a in 5753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009437811 = score(doc=5753,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 5753, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5753)
    0.0089308405 = product of:
      0.017861681 = sum of:
        0.017861681 = weight(_text_:information in 5753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017861681 = score(doc=5753,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 5753, 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=5753)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    In their attempts to make materials more accessible, librarians are making catalogue entries unnecessarily complicated. Discusses the current scenario where catalogues appear to contain much information that is irrelevant to users. Provides an example of a future scenario where one composite catalogue record replaces a number of unitary records. Asks why the information that publishers have in machine readable form cannot be used with current technology to help simplify the entry
    Type
    a
  18. Wool, G.J.; Austhof, B.: Cataloguing standards and machine translation : a study of reformatted ISBD records in an online catalog (1993) 0.01 
    0.0068851607 = product of:
  0.017212901 = sum of:
    0.010897844 = weight(_text_:a in 7321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010897844 = score(doc=7321,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 7321, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7321)
    0.006315058 = product of:
      0.012630116 = sum of:
        0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 7321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012630116 = score(doc=7321,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 7321, 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=7321)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Labelled bibliographic display screens in online catalogues can repackage records created for card catalogues in ways that restructure the records, redefine data categories and contexts, and add or omit selected categories of data. Reports on a study of the impact of automated display on catalogue records in a medium-sized research library by comparing the card and online version of 1.005 records created according to the ISBD conventions
    Source
    Information technology and libraries. 12(1993) no.4, S.383-403
    Type
    a
  19. Miller, E.; Ogbuji, U.: Linked data design for the visible library (2015) 0.01 
    0.006219466 = product of:
  0.015548665 = sum of:
    0.010812371 = weight(_text_:a in 2773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010812371 = score(doc=2773,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 2773, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2773)
    0.0047362936 = product of:
      0.009472587 = sum of:
        0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 2773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009472587 = score(doc=2773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2773, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2773)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    In response to libraries' frustration over their rich resources being invisible on the web, Zepheira, at the request of the Library of Congress, created BIBFRAME, a bibliographic metadata framework for cataloging. The model replaces MARC records with linked data, promoting resource visibility through a rich network of links. In place of formal taxonomies, a small but extensible vocabulary streamlines metadata efforts. Rather than using a unique bibliographic record to describe one item, BIBFRAME draws on the Dublin Core and the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) to generate formalized descriptions of Work, Instance, Authority and Annotation as well as associations between items. Zepheira trains librarians to transform MARC records to BIBFRAME resources and adapt the vocabulary for specialized needs, while subject matter experts and technical experts manage content, site design and usability. With a different approach toward data modeling and metadata, previously invisible resources gain visibility through linking.
    Footnote
    Contribution to a special section "Linked data and the charm of weak semantics".
    Source
    Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 41(2015) no.4, S.23-29
    Type
    a
  20. Tosaka, Y.; Park, J.-r.: RDA: Resource description & access : a survey of the current state of the art (2013) 0.01 
    0.006203569 = product of:
  0.015508923 = sum of:
    0.0076151006 = weight(_text_:a in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076151006 = score(doc=677,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
    0.007893822 = product of:
      0.015787644 = sum of:
        0.015787644 = weight(_text_:information in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015787644 = score(doc=677,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Resource Description & Access (RDA) is intended to provide a flexible and extensible framework that can accommodate all types of content and media within rapidly evolving digital environments while also maintaining compatibility with the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2). The cataloging community is grappling with practical issues in navigating the transition from AACR2 to RDA; there is a definite need to evaluate major subject areas and broader themes in information organization under the new RDA paradigm. This article aims to accomplish this task through a thorough and critical review of the emerging RDA literature published from 2005 to 2011. The review mostly concerns key areas of difference between RDA and AACR2, the relationship of the new cataloging code to metadata standards, the impact on encoding standards such as Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), end user considerations, and practitioners' views on RDA implementation and training. Future research will require more in-depth studies of RDA's expected benefits and the manner in which the new cataloging code will improve resource retrieval and bibliographic control for users and catalogers alike over AACR2. The question as to how the cataloging community can best move forward to the post-AACR2/MARC environment must be addressed carefully so as to chart the future of bibliographic control in the evolving environment of information production, management, and use.
    Series
    Advances in information science
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.651-662
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Languages

  • d 49
  • e 48
  • f 2
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Themes