Search (39 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. McBride, J.L.: Faceted subject access for music through USMARC : a case for linked fields (2000) 0.04 
    0.043322887 = product of:
  0.1516301 = sum of:
    0.05092278 = weight(_text_:subject in 5403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05092278 = score(doc=5403,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 5403, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5403)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 5403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=5403,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 5403, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5403)
    0.060332447 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060332447 = score(doc=5403,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 5403, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5403)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 5403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=5403,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 5403, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5403)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    Abstract
    The USMARC Format for Bibliographic Description contains three fields (045, 047, and 048) designed to facilitate subject access to music materials. The fields cover three of the main aspects of subject description for music: date of composition, form or genre, and number of instruments or voices, respectively. The codes are rarely used for subject access, because of the difficulty of coding them and because false drops would result in retrieval of bibliographic records where more than one musical work is present, a situation that occurs frequently with sound recordings. It is proposed that the values of the fields be converted to natural language and that subfield 8 be used to link all access fields in a bibliographic record for greater precision in retrieval. This proposal has implications beyond music cataloging, especially for metadata and any bibliographic records describing materials containing many works and subjects.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 31(2000) no.1, S.15-30
  2. Riva, P.: Mapping MARC 21 linking entry fields to FRBR and Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (2004) 0.02 
    0.02317635 = product of:
  0.10815629 = sum of:
    0.02849856 = product of:
      0.05699712 = sum of:
        0.05699712 = weight(_text_:schemes in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05699712 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.35474116 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.06745373 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06745373 = score(doc=136,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5770728 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
    0.0122040035 = product of:
      0.024408007 = sum of:
        0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024408007 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    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
  3. Chandrakar, R.: Mapping CCF to MARC21 : an experimental approach (2001) 0.02 
    0.019848065 = product of:
  0.09262431 = sum of:
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 5437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=5437,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 5437, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5437)
    0.05224943 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05224943 = score(doc=5437,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 5437, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5437)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 5437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=5437,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 5437, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5437)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    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.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 33(2001) no.1, S.33-49
  4. Fiander, D. J.: Applying XML to the bibliographic description (2001) 0.02 
    0.017793506 = product of:
  0.08303636 = sum of:
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 5441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=5441,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 5441, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5441)
    0.042661484 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042661484 = score(doc=5441,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 5441, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5441)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 5441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=5441,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 5441, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5441)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    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.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 33(2001) no.2, S.17-28
  5. Sandberg-Fox, A.M.: ¬The microcomputer revolution (2001) 0.02 
    0.017635275 = product of:
  0.08229795 = sum of:
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=5409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5409)
    0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035193928 = score(doc=5409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 5409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5409)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=5409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5409)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    With the introduction of the microcomputer in the 1980s, a revolution of sorts was initiated. In libraries this was evidenced by the acquisition of personal computers and the software to run on them. All that catalogers needed were cataloging rules and a MARC format to ensure their bibliographic control. However, little did catalogers realize they were dealing with an industry that introduced rapid technological changes, which effected continual revision of existing rules and the formulation of special guidelines to deal with the industry's innovative products. This article focuses on the attempts of libraries and organized cataloging groups to develop the Chapter 9 descriptive cataloging rules in AACR2; it highlights selected events and includes cataloging examples that illustrate the evolution of the chapter.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 31(2001) no.2, S.85-100
  6. Mönch, C.; Aalberg, T.: Automatic conversion from MARC to FRBR (2003) 0.01 
    0.014344085 = product of:
  0.06693906 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 2422, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2422)
    0.035551235 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035551235 = score(doc=2422,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 2422, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2422)
    0.010170003 = product of:
      0.020340007 = sum of:
        0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020340007 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    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
  7. Weber, R.: "Functional requirements for bibliographic records" und Regelwerksentwicklung (2001) 0.01 
    0.01412341 = product of:
  0.09886386 = sum of:
    0.070387855 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070387855 = score(doc=6838,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.6021745 = fieldWeight in 6838, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6838)
    0.02847601 = product of:
      0.05695202 = sum of:
        0.05695202 = weight(_text_:22 in 6838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05695202 = score(doc=6838,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Source
    Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 13(2001) H.3, S.20-22
  8. 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 
    0.013790851 = product of:
  0.04826798 = sum of:
    0.011776006 = weight(_text_:classification in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011776006 = score(doc=2434,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.12315229 = fieldWeight in 2434, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2434)
    0.017596964 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017596964 = score(doc=2434,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.15054363 = fieldWeight in 2434, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2434)
    0.011776006 = weight(_text_:classification in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011776006 = score(doc=2434,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.12315229 = fieldWeight in 2434, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2434)
    0.0071190023 = product of:
      0.014238005 = sum of:
        0.014238005 = weight(_text_:22 in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014238005 = score(doc=2434,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    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.
    - Elektronischer DDC-Dienst Im Fall der deutschen Übersetzung der Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) wurde die Idee einer Normdatei DDC-Deutsch zugunsten eines zentralen elektronischen DDC-Dienstes bei Der Deutschen Bibliothek aufgegeben. Dieser Dienst hält die übersetzten Daten bereit und stellt sie in drei verschiedenen Ausprägungen zur Verfügung: 1. Zentrales Such- und Browsingtool für Benutzer 2. Klassifikationswerkzeug für Sacherschließer 3. SOAP-Schnittstelle für den elektronischen Datenaustausch. Um die DDC künftig gewinnbringend in der Benutzung einsetzen zu können, werden Konkordanzen zu anderen Klassifikationen, insbesondere aber zur weit verbreiteten Regensburger Verbundklassifikation (RVK) benötigt. Mithilfe dieser Konkordanzen können Benutzer im OPAL Der Deutschen Bibliothek nach DDC-Notationen suchen und würden zusätzlich Ergebnisse aus den Verbünden angezeigt bekommen, die bislang nicht mit der DDC erschlossen sind. Der GBV plant eine Grunderschließung seiner Verbunddatenbank mit der DDC in 5 Ebenen. Ziel ist es, bis Ende 2005 alle Verbunddaten mit der DDC zu verbinden und damit ein bedeutendes Recherchetool zu erhalten.
  9. Tennant, R.: ¬A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty-first century (2004) 0.01 
    0.011413438 = product of:
  0.079894066 = sum of:
    0.056881975 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056881975 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.4866305 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
    0.02301209 = product of:
      0.04602418 = sum of:
        0.04602418 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04602418 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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
  10. Coyle, K.: Future considerations : the functional library systems record (2004) 0.01 
    0.010450569 = product of:
  0.07315398 = sum of:
    0.056881975 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056881975 = score(doc=562,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.4866305 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.016272005 = product of:
      0.03254401 = sum of:
        0.03254401 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03254401 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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
  11. Aalberg, T.; Haugen, F.B.; Husby, O.: ¬A Tool for Converting from MARC to FRBR (2006) 0.01 
    0.009144248 = product of:
  0.06400973 = sum of:
    0.04977173 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04977173 = score(doc=2425,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 2425, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2425)
    0.014238005 = product of:
      0.02847601 = sum of:
        0.02847601 = weight(_text_:22 in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02847601 = score(doc=2425,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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
  12. Neuböck, I.: Deutscher Bibliothekartag Leipzig 2007 : Standardisierungsausschuss (2007) 0.01 
    0.007557975 = product of:
  0.03527055 = sum of:
    0.01009372 = weight(_text_:classification in 414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01009372 = score(doc=414,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.10555911 = fieldWeight in 414, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=414)
    0.015083112 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015083112 = score(doc=414,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.1290374 = fieldWeight in 414, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=414)
    0.01009372 = weight(_text_:classification in 414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01009372 = score(doc=414,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.10555911 = fieldWeight in 414, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=414)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Content
    "Der Bericht fand im größten Saal des Kongresszentrums in Leipzig statt und war bei Weitem überdimensioniert - das Interesse am Neuen Regelwerk und Neuem Format sowie die Aufregung darüber scheinen der Vergangenheit anzugehören. Zunächst erfolgte ein Bericht zum geplanten Umstieg auf das Format MARC21 von Reinhard Altenhöner und Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB). Dazu gibt es ein eigenes Steuerungsgremium für den Umgang mit MARC in Bibliotheken, das sich MARBI (= Machine Readable Bibliographic Information Committee) nennt. Federführend in diesem Gremium ist die Library of Congress. An dieses Gremium werden Änderungswünsche für die deutsche und österreichische Konvertierung auf MARC21 geleitet und dort diskutiert bzw. genehmigt und umgesetzt. Eine Konkordanz von MAB2 zur MARC21 wurde erstellt. Daraus resultierende Änderungswünsche an MARC21 wurden an MARBI weitergeleitet: Folgende Anträge wurden bereits begutachtet und akzeptiert: 1. IDN-Verknüpfung - Zu PND, GKS, SWD - Zwischen Stück und Reihentitel 2. Sortierform für Bände 3. Kodierung für mehrteilige Werke 4. Sonstiges, wie RSWK-Ketten-Kennzeichnung der Institutionen, ... Bei den Kodierungen gab es Vorbehalte. DDC in MARC21 wurde zurückgestellt und soll in das MARC Classification-Format eingehen. Tendenz bei mehrbändigen Werken: Jeder Band soll ein vollständiger Datensatz sein. Y-Sätze gibt es nicht mehr. Darüber hinaus gibt es Überlegungen zu einer D-MARC für die Deutsche Anwendung von MARC21, aber auch Überlegungen zu MAR-/XML... Die D-MARC soll ca. 12 Gruppen umfassen, davon sollen sich 4 Blöcke mit Kodierungen befassen. Inwieweit MARC21 als Internformat oder lediglich als Austauschformat zum Einsatz kommt muss von den jeweiligen Verbünden entschieden werden. Ais Tendenz lässt sich festhalten, dass man weg von Kodierungen und hin zu textlichen Formulierungen geht.
  13. German, L.: Bibliographic utilities (2009) 0.01 
    0.00703732 = product of:
  0.09852248 = sum of:
    0.09852248 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09852248 = score(doc=3858,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.84286875 = fieldWeight in 3858, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3858)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    Bibliographic utilities have been in existence for more than 40 years. From the beginning, they were designed to promote resource sharing among their members. The core of a bibliographic utility is the database of bibliographic records. The structure of the bibliographic record is based upon Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC). Other services have evolved from the utilities' bibliographic database.
  14. Oehlschläger, S.: Projekt Mapping ISBDs to FRBR (2004) 0.01 
    0.006487893 = product of:
  0.04541525 = sum of:
    0.016974261 = weight(_text_:subject in 2791) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016974261 = score(doc=2791,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.15806471 = fieldWeight in 2791, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2791)
    0.028440988 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2791) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028440988 = score(doc=2791,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24331525 = fieldWeight in 2791, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2791)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Die Deutsche Bibliothek und die British Library fördern gemeinsam das Projekt »Mapping ISBDs to FRBR«. Beide Bibliotheken unterstützen damit die strategischen Ziele der IFLA-CDNL Allianz für bibliografische Standards. Die Deutsche Bibliothek ist innerhalb der Allianz verantwortlich für die Unterstützung der Pflege und Weiterentwicklung der ISBD, während die British Library für die Unterstützung von Pflege und Entwicklung der Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) zuständig ist. Für die Durchführung des Projekts konnte Tom Delsey gewonnen werden, der früher in der National Library of Canada beschäftigt war. Tom Delsey ist federführender Autor der FRBR und hat Beiträge zu vielen verschiedenen Aspekten der International Standard Bibliographic Descriptions (ISBDs) geliefert. Eine der größten Errungenschaften der IFLA auf dem Gebiet der bibliografischen Kontrolle ist die Schaffung von weit verbreiteten Regeln, die ihren Niederschlag in den verschiedenen Ausgaben der ISBDs und in dem anerkannten Modell der FRBR gefunden haben, welches auf der Basis der ISBDs, GARE (Guidelines for Authority and Reference entries) und GSARE (Guidelines for Subject Authority and Reference entries) entwickelt wurde. Für die Akzeptanz der IFLA-Arbeit in diesen Bereichen ist es äußerst wichtig, dass die ISBDs und die FRBR sich aufeinander beziehen und sich gegenseitig unterstützen, um für den Anwender eine Konsistenz zwischen beiden zu gewährleisten. Aus diesem Grund hat die ISBD Review Group Überlegungen zur Angleichung der in den ISBDs benutzten Terminologie mit der der FRBR angestellt. Beim Versuch einer Terminologieangleichung ist die Gruppe jedoch auf Schwierigkeiten gestoßen, die zum Großteil darin begründet sind, dass die Begriffe, die in den FRBR benutzt werden, im Kontext eines »Entity-Relationship«-Modells definiert wurden, das von einer höheren Abstraktionsebene ausgeht als die Beschreibungen für die ISBDs. Während die Entitäten, die im FRBR-Modell definiert sind, sich einerseits klar auf die Elemente beziehen, die eine ISBD-Beschreibung bilden, sind diese andererseits nicht zwingend in jeder Hinsicht deckungsgleich. Insgesamt sind die Beziehungen zu vielschichtig, um durch einen einfachen Austausch der Terminologie dargestellt werden zu können. Deshalb haben die ISBD Review Group und die FRBR Review Group der IFLA beschlossen, dass ein anderer Weg der Annäherung verfolgt werden soll, um die Beziehungen zwischen den ISBDs und dem FRBR-Modell darzustellen. Es soll eine Tabelle entwickelt werden, die die Beziehungen jedes Elements, das in den ISBDs spezifiziert ist, dem korrespondierenden Entitätenattribut oder der Beziehung zuweist, wie sie im FRBR-Modell definiert ist. Diese Tabelle soll zeigen, dass die ISBDs und die FRBR miteinander in einer harmonischen Beziehung stehen. Zusätzlich soll sie die Abbildung der FRBR in den ISBDs (und anderen Standards) vervollständigen, die im Appendix A des FRBR Final Report dargestellt ist. Diese Abbildung würde es beiden Review Groups auch ermöglichen sicherzustellen, dass es kein Element in den ISBDs gibt, das nicht in den FRBR repräsentiert ist, und Änderungen in die Wege zu leiten, die notwendig sind, um zu einer größeren Konsistenz der beiden zu gelangen.
  15. Croissant, C.R.: MARC21 und die anglo-amerikanische Katalogisierungspraxis (2004) 0.01 
    0.00605289 = product of:
  0.042370226 = sum of:
    0.030166224 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030166224 = score(doc=1764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 1764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1764)
    0.0122040035 = product of:
      0.024408007 = sum of:
        0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024408007 = score(doc=1764,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Das MARC21-Datenformat wird aus der Sicht eines praktizierenden AACR2/MARC-Katalogisierers vorgeführt. Der Autor gibt zunächst eine allgemeine Einführung in das MARC21 Bibliographic Format. Der zweite Abschnitt der Arbeit ist der Erschließung von mehrteiligen bzw. mehrbändigen Werken gewidmet. Die Behandlung von mehrteiligen bzw. mehrbändigen Werken, in der AACR2-Welt "Analyse" genannt, ist nämlich der Punkt, an dem die anglo-amerikanische und die deutsche Katalogisierungspraxis am weitesten auseinandergehen. Die verschiedenen Formen der "Analyse" werden erläutert im Hinblick auf die Frage, inwiefern diese Praxen den Bedürfnissen der Benutzer gerecht werden. Auf eine kurze Behandlung der besonderen Problematik der fortlaufenden Sammelwerke folgt dann eine Einführung in das MARC21 Authorities Format für Normdatensätze. Die Rolle der verschiedenen Arten von Normdatensätzen bei der Katalogisierung wird auch besprochen. DerAufsatz schließt mit einem Kommentar über verschiedene Aspekte der Verlinkung von Datensätzen.
    Date
    13. 8.2004 21:22:06
  16. Maxwell, R.L.: Bibliographic control (2009) 0.01 
    0.0057008807 = product of:
  0.079812326 = sum of:
    0.079812326 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079812326 = score(doc=3750,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.6828017 = fieldWeight in 3750, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3750)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    Bibliographic control is the process of creation, exchange, preservation, and use of data about information resources. Formal bibliographic control has been practiced for millennia, but modern techniques began to be developed and implemented in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. A series of cataloging codes characterized this period. These codes governed the creation of library catalogs, first in book form, then on cards, and finally in electronic formats, including MAchine-Readable Cataloging (MARC). The period was also characterized by the rise of shared cataloging programs, allowing the development of resource-saving copy cataloging procedures. Such programs were assisted by the development of cataloging networks such as OCLC and RLG. The twentieth century saw progress in the theory of bibliographic control, including the 1961 Paris Principles, culminating with the early twenty-first century Statement of International Cataloguing Principles and IFLA's Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). Toward the end of the period bibliographic control began to be applied to newly invented electronic media, as "metadata." Trends point toward continued development of collaborative and international approaches to bibliographic control.
  17. Block, B.; Hengel, C.; Heuvelmann, R.; Katz, C.; Rusch, B.; Schmidgall, K.; Sigrist, B.: Maschinelles Austauschformat für Bibliotheken und die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records : Oder: Wieviel FRBR verträgt MAB? (2005) 0.01 
    0.0055507733 = product of:
  0.03885541 = sum of:
    0.012730695 = weight(_text_:subject in 467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012730695 = score(doc=467,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.11854853 = fieldWeight in 467, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=467)
    0.026124716 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026124716 = score(doc=467,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.22349933 = fieldWeight in 467, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=467)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Eine konsequente Umsetzung des FRBR-Modells - schreibt OCLC - würde die größte Veränderung in der Katalogisierung seit hundert Jahren bedeuten. Doch gibt es auch andere Stimmen. So hieß es am Rande eines FRBRWorkshops, der 2004 in Der Deutschen Bibliothek stattfand: Das Verhältnis zwischen den FRBR und der Katalogisierungspraxis sei vergleichbar mit der Beziehung zwischen Fußballkommentatoren und der Fußballmannschaft. Die einen theoretisierten nach Spielende das, was die anderen soeben getan hätten. Was hat es mit den Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records nun tatsächlich auf sich? Haben vielleicht beide Stimmen Recht? In welcher Beziehung steht das MAB-Format zu dem vorliegenden Modell? Wie lassen sich die Entitäten mit ihren jeweiligen Attributen in MAB abbilden? Bietet MAB die strukturellen Voraussetzungen, um FRBR-Anwendungen zu unterstützen? Das sind die Fragen, die den MAB-Ausschuss, der seit Beginn diesen Jahres als Expertengruppe Datenformate auftritt, beschäftigten und auf die im Folgenden erste Antworten versucht werden. Die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, kurz FRBR, sind eine Empfehlung der International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) von 1998 zur Neustrukturierung von Bibliothekskatalogen. Dabei sind die FRBR ausgelegt als ein logisches Denkmodell für bibliographische Beschreibungen. Es handelt sich ausdrücklich nicht um ein umsetzungsreifes Datenmodell oder gar ein praktisches Regelwerk. Das Modell bleibt auf einer abstrakten Ebene. Beschrieben werden abstrakte Entitäten mit ihren Eigenschaften und Beziehungen zueinander.
    Zehn Entitäten werden drei Gruppen zugeordnet. Die Entitäten der ersten Gruppe stehen unter der Überschrift Produkte intellektueller und/oder künstlerischer Arbeit, Gruppe zwei für die Produktverantwortlichen und die letzte Gruppe für die Produktinhalte. Wichtig für das Verständnis ist die Unterscheidung zwischen den vier Entitäten der ersten Gruppe: Work, Expression, Manifestation, Item. Die abstrakte Einheit Work drückt sich aus in einer Expression, die ihre konkrete, physische Erscheinung in einer oder mehreren Manifestationen findet, von der wiederum zahlreiche Items existieren (können). Frau Tillett nennt zur Illustration ein Beispiel: Von einem Roman (Work) existieren verschiedene Übersetzungen (Expression) als Papierausgabe oder Hörbuch (Manifestation), die in zahlreichen Exemplaren (Item) im Besitz einer Bibliothek sind. Diese Begriffe haben weder in der Terminologie der AACR noch in der der RAK genaue Entsprechungen. Entsprechend verhält es sich mit den Felddefinitionen auf der Formatebene in MAB und MARC 21. Zwei weitere Gruppen von Entitäten spielen im Kontext bibliographischer Veröffentlichungen eine Rolle: Zum einen sind dies Personen (Person) und Körperschaften (Corporate Body): Gruppe-2-Entitäten. Sie sind die Akteure, die ein künstlerisches Werk - bestehend aus Work, Expression, Manifestation, Item - gestalten: es schaffen, dazu beitragen oder daran beteiligt sind. Zum anderen sind dies Begriffe (Concept), Gegenstände (Object), Ereignisse (Event) und Orte (Place): die Gruppe-3-Entitäten. Damit sind alle Einheiten gemeint, die in Werken als deren Gegenstand behandelt werden. Da auch die Entitäten der Gruppen 1 und 2 Gegenstand einer Veröffentlichung sein können, sind sie gleichzeitig auch der Gruppe 3 zuzurechnen. Jede Einheit charakterisiert sich durch Eigenschaften, die mit Hilfe von Attributen beschrieben werden können. Im MAB-Format finden sich diese Attribute in Feldern wieder. Das Verhältnis zwischen den Entitäten ist in dem Modell durch Relationen beschrieben. Für die Entitäten der ersten Gruppe handelt es sich um immanente Relationen (z.B. Relation "is realized by" Beispiel: Work "is realized by" Expression) und um Relationen, die bibliographische Entitäten untereinander in Beziehung setzen (z.B. Teil-Ganzes-Beziehungen). Für Personen und Körperschaften wird mit der Relation ihre Rolle definiert (Verfasser, Übersetzer usw.). Das gilt auch für die Entitäten der dritten Gruppe, deren Rolle mit der Relation "is subject of" beschrieben ist.
  18. Funktionelle Anforderungen an bibliografische Datensätze : Abschlussbericht der IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (2006) 0.01 
    0.005078748 = product of:
  0.07110247 = sum of:
    0.07110247 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07110247 = score(doc=2263,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.6082881 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Content
    Originaltitel: Functional requirements for bibliographic records
  19. Hegna, K.; Murtomaa, E.: Data mining MARC to find : FRBR? (2003) 0.01 
    0.005027704 = product of:
  0.070387855 = sum of:
    0.070387855 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070387855 = score(doc=69,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.6021745 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Source
    International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 32(2003) no.3, S.52-55
  20. Kushwoh, S.S.; Gautam, J.N.; Singh, R.: Migration from CDS / ISIS to KOHA : a case study of data conversion from CCF to MARC 21 (2009) 0.00 
    0.0037321025 = product of:
  0.05224943 = sum of:
    0.05224943 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05224943 = score(doc=2279,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 2279, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2279)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    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.

Authors

Languages

  • d 20
  • e 13
  • f 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 31
  • m 5
  • s 5
  • el 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications