Search (60 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  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 
    0.011959012 = 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Syré, L.: AACR2: Stellungnahme der AG Regionalbibliographie (2002) 0.01 
    0.0061156014 = product of:
  0.015289003 = sum of:
    0.002724461 = weight(_text_:a in 841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002724461 = score(doc=841,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.050957955 = fieldWeight in 841, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=841)
    0.012564542 = product of:
      0.025129084 = sum of:
        0.025129084 = weight(_text_:22 in 841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025129084 = score(doc=841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 841, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=841)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    "Die Mitglieder der Arbeitsgruppe Regionalbibliographie in der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Regionalbibliotheken (DBV Sektion 4) haben auf ihrer Jahrestagung am 22. und 23. April 2002 in Bautzen einen etwaigen Umstieg von RAK auf AACR2 beraten und sich einstimmig dagegen ausgesprochen. - Begründung - Der personelle, technische und finanzielle Aufwand für den Umstieg wäre für die Landes- und Regionalbibliographien gewaltig. Diejenigen Bibliographien, die ihre eigenen Datenbanken unterhalten, müssten diese sowohl vollständig EDV-technisch (z.B. hinsichtlich des Datenformats) anpassen als auch sämtliche Änderungen (z.B. bei Zeitschriftenaufnahmen, bei der Ansetzung von Körperschaften) nachführen. Dies ist umso schwerwiegender, als nicht alle Bibliographie- Datenbanken über entsprechende eigene Normdateien verfügen. Alle Landes- und Regionalbibliographien, also auch diejenigen, die in die Verbunddatenbanken integriert sind, wären überdies vom zusätzlichen Schulungsaufwand für das neue Regelwerk sowie von Revisionsarbeiten an den Normdateien betroffen. Weitere Nachteile wären Inkonsistenzen im Datenbestand bzw. Qualitätsverluste bei der Konvertierung der Altdaten. Diesen schwerwiegenden Nachteilen steht kein ersichtlicher Vorteil bei Erstellung oder Benutzung der Landes- und Regionalbibliographien gegenüber: Der Rationalisierungseffekt ist unbedeutend, da in Regionalbibliographien ganz überwiegend unselbstständige deutschsprachige Titel verzeichnet werden, für die keine Katalogisate aus AACR-Ländern genutzt werden können. Auch für die Benutzer der Datenbanken steht keine Verbesserung der Rechercheergebnisse zu erwarten. Die Landes- und Regionalbibliographien sehen sich derzeit einer Vielzahl von Aufgaben und neuen Herausforderungen gegenüber, die sie mit bestenfalls stagnierendem Personalstand zu erfüllen haben: Neben einer stetig wachsenden Titelzahl sind dies z.B. die neuen Publikationsformen im WWW, der Aufbau eines gemeinsamen Suchinstruments ("Virtuelle Deutsche Landesbibliographie° in KVK-Technik) und die Integration der noch konventionell vorliegenden älteren Bibliographienachweise in die Datenbanken. In dieser Situation wäre es kontraproduktiv, wenn enorme Ressourcen für einen Regelwerks- und Formatwechsel ohne praktischen Nutzen abgezogen würden. Die AG Regionalbibliographie lehnt daher einen Umstieg auf AACR2 ab. Sie empfiehlt stattdessen, das bestehende Regelwerk weiterzuentwickeln sowie alternative und zeitgemäße Methoden zu erarbeiten, um die internationale Zusammenarbeit zu verbessern (z.B. durch das Projekt "Virtuelle internationale Normdatei")."
    Type
    a
  14. German, L.: Bibliographic utilities (2009) 0.01 
    0.0056083994 = product of:
  0.014020998 = sum of:
    0.00770594 = weight(_text_:a in 3858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00770594 = score(doc=3858,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 3858, 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=3858)
    0.006315058 = product of:
      0.012630116 = sum of:
        0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 3858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012630116 = score(doc=3858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3858, 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=3858)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
    Type
    a
  15. Oehlschläger, S.: Aus der 49. Sitzung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme am 23. und 24. November 2005 in Köln (2006) 0.01 
    0.0051233517 = product of:
  0.012808379 = sum of:
    0.0017027882 = weight(_text_:a in 632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017027882 = score(doc=632,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.03184872 = fieldWeight in 632, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=632)
    0.0111055905 = product of:
      0.022211181 = sum of:
        0.022211181 = weight(_text_:22 in 632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022211181 = score(doc=632,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13679022 = fieldWeight in 632, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=632)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    MARC21 als Austauschformat Die Expertengruppe Datenformate hat in ihrer 5. Sitzung am 22. November 2005 die Frage der Hierarchienabbildung bei der Übernahme von MARC 21 weiter diskutiert und einer Lösung zugeführt. Für einen geringen Prozentsatz der Daten werden trotz Vorarbeiten der Expertengruppe Probleme bei der Überführung von MARC-21-Daten in MAB2-Strukturen gesehen. Es wurde darauf hingewiesen, dass es im Zusammenhang mit dem Umstieg auf MARC 21 ebenso wie bei der kooperativen Katalogisierung notwendig ist, gemeinsame Regeln festzulegen und Absprachen zwischen den Verbünden zu treffen. Eine unterschiedliche Handhabung des Formats sollte sich von vornherein verbieten. Projekt Kooperative Neukatalogisierung Die Projektgruppe hat zweimal getagt, zuletzt am 3. November 2005. Es liegen erste Ergebnisse vor, und spätestens Anfang Januar 2006 soll das Verfahren erprobt werden. Alle Verbünde signalisieren ihr Interesse an dem geplanten Verfahren, da die Eigenkatalogisierungsrate nach wie vor zu hoch ist. Für die Akzeptanz des Dienstes, der auch zum Synchronisieren der vorhandenen Aufnahmen und zum Austausch von Sacherschließungsdaten genutzt werden soll, ist die Aktualität des geplanten Neukatalogisierungspools essentiell. Ein weiteres Ziel ist auch die Optimierung der Arbeitsabläufe zwischen Verbundzentrale und Bibliotheken. Catalogue Enrichment Zur Anreicherung der Katalogdaten gibt es verschiedene Aktivitäten innerhalb der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme, die koordiniert werden müssen, damit eine Mehrfachdigitalisierung von Inhaltsverzeichnissen, Abstracts und anderen Objekten vermieden werden kann. Die Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme beschließt, eine kleine Arbeitsgruppe einzusetzen, die bis spätestens Anfang Februar 2006 einen Vorschlag mit unterschiedlichen Szenarien für unterschiedliche Umgebungen vorlegen soll. Aufgabe der AG Datenanreicherung ist die Konzeption eines schnellen Dienstes für die Digitalisierung von Abstracts und Inhaltsverzeichnissen sofern sie lizenzrechtlich frei verfügbar sind, die allen Verbünden zur Verfügung gestellt werden sollen. Dazu gehören eine Übersicht über die vorhandenen Daten und eine ausgearbeitete Verfahrensvorschrift für das künftige Vorgehen.
    DDC/Melvil-Nutzungs- und Lizenzsituation Die Deutsche Bibliothek hat den Dienst Melvil vorgestellt, der auf der im Rahmen des Projektes DDC Deutsch erstellten deutschen Übersetzung der 22. Ausgabe der DDC basiert, und die Such- und Sprachgewohnheiten deutschsprachiger Benutzerinnen und Benutzer berücksichtigt. Mit Melvil wurde ein Online-Dienst entwickelt, der Bibliotheken und Informationseinrichtungen außer einem an WebDewey orientierten Klassifikationstool MelvilClass auch ein Retrievaltool MelvilSearch für die verbale Suche nach DDC-erschlossenen Dokumenten und das Browsing in der DDC-Hierarchie zur Verfügung stellt. Über die Schnittstelle MelvilSoap können Bibliotheken und Verbundzentralen, die den Dienst Melvil lizenziert haben, auch DDC-Daten zur weiteren Nutzung herunterladen. Gegenwärtig vergibt Die Deutsche Bibliothek Testlizenzen, ab 2006 kann der Dienst nach einem gestaffelten Modell kostenpflichtig genutzt werden Ergebnisse der Adhoc-Arbeitsgruppe ISBD(CR) Der Standardisierungsausschuss hatte in seiner 9. Sitzung am 15. Dezember 2004 die Anpassung der Splitregeln bei fortlaufenden Sammelwerken an die ISBD(CR) mit dem Ziel der Übernahme beschlossen. Im Januar 2005 richtete die Arbeitsstelle für Standardisierung eine Ad-hoc-AG ISBD(CR) ein, in der Vertreter der ZDB, der Expertengruppe Formalerschließung und der AGDBT (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Datenbankteilnehmer der ZDB) unter der Federführung der Arbeitsstelle für Standardisierung zusammenarbeiteten. Auftragsgemäß konnte dem Standardisierungsausschuss am 2. August 2005 ein entscheidungsreifer Entwurf zur Anwendung der ISBD(CR)-Splitregeln für fortlaufende Sammelwerke vorgelegt werden. Die Unterlage, die dem Standardisierungsausschuss zu seiner 11. Sitzung am 1. Dezember 2005 zugeleitet wurde, wurde den Mitgliedern der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme im Vorfeld der Sitzung zur Kenntnis gegeben. Die zeitnahe Anwendung der ISBD(CR)-Splitregeln würde nicht nur in einem kleinen abgeschlossenen Bereich eine Angleichung an internationale Gepflogenheiten bedeuten, sondern sie hätte auch einige positive Auswirkungen auf die von Zeitschriftentiteln abhängigen ergänzenden Dienstleistungen. So würde z.B. die Verlinkung mit SFX-Diensten erheblich erleichtert."
    Type
    a
  16. Maxwell, R.L.: Bibliographic control (2009) 0.00 
    0.0049910345 = product of:
  0.012477586 = sum of:
    0.005779455 = weight(_text_:a in 3750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005779455 = score(doc=3750,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3750, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3750)
    0.0066981306 = product of:
      0.013396261 = sum of:
        0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 3750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013396261 = score(doc=3750,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3750, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3750)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
    Type
    a
  17. Oehlschläger, S.: Aus der 47. Sitzung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme am 3. und 4. November 2004 in Wien (2005) 0.00 
    0.0038222508 = product of:
  0.009555627 = sum of:
    0.0017027882 = weight(_text_:a in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017027882 = score(doc=3124,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.03184872 = fieldWeight in 3124, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3124)
    0.007852838 = product of:
      0.015705677 = sum of:
        0.015705677 = weight(_text_:22 in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015705677 = score(doc=3124,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 3124, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3124)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 1.2005 18:53:53
    Type
    a
  18. IFLA Cataloguing Principles : steps towards an International Cataloguing Code. Report from the 1st Meeting of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code, Frankfurt 2003 (2004) 0.00 
    0.0034689305 = product of:
  0.008672326 = sum of:
    0.0059378254 = weight(_text_:a in 2312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059378254 = score(doc=2312,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.11106029 = fieldWeight in 2312, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2312)
    0.0027345007 = product of:
      0.0054690014 = sum of:
        0.0054690014 = weight(_text_:information in 2312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054690014 = score(doc=2312,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.0671879 = fieldWeight in 2312, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2312)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    BK
    06.04 / Ausbildung, Beruf, Organisationen <Information und Dokumentation>
    Classification
    06.04 / Ausbildung, Beruf, Organisationen <Information und Dokumentation>
    Footnote
    Rez. in: KO 31(2004) no.4, S.255-257: (P. Riva): "Cataloguing standardization at the international level can be viewed as proceeding in a series of milestone conferences. This meeting, the first in a series which will cover different regions of the world, will take its place in that progression. The first IFLA Meeting of Experts an an International Cataloguing Code (IME ICC), held July 28-30, 2003 at Die Deutsche Bibliothek in Frankfurt, gathered representatives of almost all European countries as well as three of the four AACR author countries. As explained in the introduction by Barbara Tillett, chair of the IME ICC planning committee, the plan is for five meetings in total. Subsequent meetings are to take place in Buenos Aires, Argentina (held August 17-18, 2004) for Latin America and the Carribean, to be followed by Alexandria, Egypt (2005) for the Middle East, Seoul, South Korea (2006) for Asia, and Durban, South Africa (2007) for Africa. The impetus for planning these meetings was triggered by the 40th anniversary of the Paris Principles, approved at the International Conference an Cataloguing Principles held in 1961. Many will welcome the timely publication of the reports and papers from this important conference in book form. The original conference website (details given an p. 176) which includes most of the same material, is still extant, but the reports and papers gathered into this volume will be referred to by cataloguing rule makers long after the web as we know it has transformed itself into a new (and quite possibly not backwards compatible) environment.
    The book is organized into four sections: introduction and results; presentation papers; background papers; and an appendix. The introduction by Barbara Tillett serves as a summary and report of the IME ICC meeting itself. The statement of the purpose of the meeting bears reporting in full (p. 6): "The goal for this meeting was to increase the ability to share cataloguing information worldwide by promoting standards for the content of bibliographic records and authority records used in library catalogues." The next item is a report summarizing the cataloguing Code comparisons prepared prior to the conference. As a mechanism for discussion, 18 codes were compared with the Paris Principles, the extent of compliance or divergence noted and discussed by representatives from the respective rule-making bodies. During the meeting the presentation of the comparisons took up half of the first day, but for the detailed responses one must return to the IME ICC website. The published summary is very dense, and difficult to follow if one is not very familiar with the Paris Principles or the codes being compared. The main outcome of the meeting follows, this is the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (draft, as approved Dec. 19, 2003 by IME ICC participants), accompanied by a useful Glossary. The most important eontribution of this volume is to serve as the permanent and official record of the Statement as it stands after the first IME ICC meeting. Subsequent meetings will surely suggest modifications and enhancements, but this version of the Statement needs to be widely read and commented on. To this end the website also makes available translations of the Statement into 15 European languages, and the glossary into four languages. Compared to the Paris Principles, this statement covers some familiar ground in the choice of access points and forms of names, but its overall scope is broader, explicitly referring to the role of authority records, entities in bibliographic records and relationships. It concludes with an appendix of "Objectives for the construction of cataloguing codes."
    The next section collects three papers, all presented at the meeting by the people best placed to address the topics authoritatively and comprehensively. The first is by John D. Byrum, of the Library of Congress, and Chair of the ISBD Review Group, who clearly and concisely explains the history and role of the ISBDs in "IFLA's ISBD Programme. Purpose, process, and prospects." The next paper, "Brave new FRBR world" is by Patrick Le Boeuf, of the Bibliothèque nationale de France and Chair of the FRBR Review Group (a French version is available an the website). Drawing from his extensive expertise with FRBR, Le Boeuf explains what FRBR is and equally importantly is not, points to its impact in the present context of Code revision, and discusses insights relevant to the working group topics that can be drawn from FRBR. Closing this section is Barbara Tillett's contribution "A Virtual International Authority File," which signals an important change in thinking about international cooperation for bibliographic control. Earlier efforts focussed an getting agreement about form and structure of headings, this view stresses linking authority files to share the intellectual effort yet present headings to the user in the form that is most appropriate culturally.
    The section of background papers starts most appropriately by reprinting the Statement of Principles from the 1961 Paris Conference and continues with another twelve papers of varying lengths, most written specifically for the IME ICC. For the published report the papers have been organized to follow the order of topics assigned to the Tive working groups: Working Group 1 Personal names; WG2 Corporate bodies; WG3 Seriality; WG4 Multivolume/multipart structures; and WG5 Uniform titles, GMDs. Pino Buizza and Mauro Guerrini co-author a substantial paper "Author and title access point control: On the way national bibliographic agencies face the issue forty years after the Paris Principles," which was first presented in Italian at the November 2002 workshop an Cataloguing and Authority Control in Rome. Issues that remain unresolved are which name or title to adopt, which form of the name or title, and which entry word to select, while choice of headings has become more uniform. The impact of catalogue language (meaning both the language of the cataloguing agency and of the majority of users of the catalogue) an these choices is explored by examining the headings used in ten national authority files for a full range of names, personal and corporate. The reflections presented are both practical and grounded in theory. Mauro Guerrini, assisted by Pino Buizza and Lucia Sardo, contributes a further new paper "Corporate bodies from ICCP up to 2003," which is an excellent survey of the surprisingly controversial issue of corporate bodies as authors, starting with Panizzi, Jewett, Cutter, Dziatzko, Fumagalli, and Lubetzky, through the debate at the Paris Conference, to the views of Verona, Domanovszky and Carpenter, and work under the auspices of IFLA an the Form and structure of corporate headings (FSCH) project and its Rvew, as well as a look at the archival standard ISAAR(CPF). This paper is the only one to have a comprehensive bibliography.
    Ton Heijligers reflects an the relation of the IME ICC effort to AACR and calls for an examination of the principles and function of the concept of main entry in his brief paper "Main entry into the future?" Ingrid Parent's article "From ISBD (S) to ISBD(CR): a voyage of discovery and alignment" is reprinted from Serials Librarian as it tells of the successful project not only to revise an ISBD, but also to harmonize three Codes for serials cataloguing: ISBD (CR), ISSN and AACR. Gunilla Jonsson's paper "The bibliographic unit in the digital context" is a perceptive discussion of level of granularity issues which must be addressed in deciding what to catalogue. Practical issues and user expectation are important considerations, whether the material to be catalogued is digital or analog. Ann Huthwaite's paper "Class of materials concept and GMDs" as well as Tom Delsey's ensuing comments, originated as Joint Steering Committee restricted papers in 2002. It is a great service to have them made widely available in this form as they raise fundamental issues and motivate work that has since taken place, leading to the current major round of revision to AACR. The GMD issue is about more than a list of terms and their placement in the cataloguing record, it is intertwined with consideration of whether the concept of classes of materials is helpful in organizing cataloguing rules, if so, which classes are needed, and how to allow for eventual integration of new types of materials. Useful in the Code comparison exercise is an extract of the section an access points from the draft of revised RAK (German cataloguing rules). Four short papers compare aspects of the Russian Cataloguing Rules with RAK and AACR: Tatiana Maskhoulia covers corporate body headings; Elena Zagorskaya outlines current development an serials and other continuing resources; Natalia N. Kasparova covers multilevel structures; Ljubov Ermakova and Tamara Bakhturina describe the uniform title and GMD provisions. The website includes one more item by Kasparova "Bibliographic record language in multilingual electronic communication." The volume is rounded out by the appendix which includes the conference agenda, the full list of participants, and the reports from the five working groups. Not for the casual reader, this volume is a must read for anyone working an cataloguing code development at the national or international levels, as well as those teaching cataloguing. Any practising cataloguer will benefit from reading the draft statement of principles and the three presentation papers, and dipping into the background papers."
  19. Oehlschläger, S.: Treffpunkt Standardisierung : Eine Veranstaltung des Standardisierungsausschusses beim 2. Leipziger Kongress für Information und Bibliothek (2004) 0.00 
    0.003277385 = product of:
  0.008193462 = sum of:
    0.002724461 = weight(_text_:a in 2790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002724461 = score(doc=2790,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.050957955 = fieldWeight in 2790, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2790)
    0.0054690014 = product of:
      0.010938003 = sum of:
        0.010938003 = weight(_text_:information in 2790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010938003 = score(doc=2790,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 2790, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2790)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Treffpunkt Standardisierung - Projekte, Konzepte und Kooperationen - lautete der Titel der Veranstaltung des Standardisierungsausschusses beim 2. Leipziger Kongress für Information und Bibliothek »Information Macht Bildung«, die vom Vorsitzenden Berndt Dugall moderiert wurde. Den größten Raum innerhalb der Veranstaltung nahm der Themenkomplex »Umstieg auf internationale Formate und Regelwerke (MARC21, AACR2)« ein. Zunächst stellte die Projektbearbeiterin Luise Hoffmann die Ausgangslage des Projektes sowie bisher vorliegende Ergebnisse aus dem von der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) geförderten Projekt vor und ging dabei auf einige Projektschwerpunkte ein: Luise Hoffmann stellte einige Punkte aus dem Regelwerks- und Formatabgleich sowie der Untersuchung über die Konsequenzen eines Umstiegs auf die laufende Katalogisierung vor und ging dann ausführlicher auf mögliche Auswirkungen eines Umstiegs auf die Informationsversorgung des Benutzers ein, einen Aspekt, dem im DFG-Antrag eine besondere, hervorgehobene Bedeutung beigemessen wird. In erster Linie wurden die Strategien der Benutzer zur Literatursuche untersucht. Ziel war es, herauszufinden, ob und welche Auswirkungen ein Umstieg auf die Benutzung des örtlichen Bibliothekskatalogs haben würde. Hierzu wurde zunächst die Suchstrategie von Benutzern ermittelt, um anschließend analysieren zu können, ob diese Strategie in einem AACR-MARC-basierten Katalog erfolgreicher oder weniger erfolgreich gewesen wäre. Da die zunehmende Literaturrecherche im Internet möglicherweise das Suchverhalten in einem OPAC beeinflusst, wurde zusätzlich die Suchstrategie im Internet erfragt. Zur Ermittlung der Suchstrategie wurde ein Fragebogen entworfen und in Der Deutschen Bibliothek getestet. Anhand der Deutschen Bibliotheksstatistik wurden Bibliotheken unter den Gesichtspunkten der Nutzerfrequenz und der Bestandsgröße ausgewählt und angefragt, ob sie bereit wären, den Fragebogen in ihrer Bibliothek auszulegen. Nachdem sich zehn Bibliotheken bereit erklärt hatten, wurden für die endgültige Befragung einige spezielle Fragen zu Suchbegriffen an die jeweiligen Bibliotheks-OPACs angepasst, da Formulierungen und Bezeichnungen wie Person, Autor, Verfasser u. dgl. in den Bibliothekskatalogen voneinander abweichen können. Als erstes Ergebnis nach Auswertung der Fragebögen aus drei Universitätsbibliotheken konnte festgestellt werden, dass Benutzer überwiegend unter Titelstichwörtern und Personen suchen und dabei Namensformen verwenden, die ihnen geläufig sind. Ein großer Teil der Benutzer weiß der Umfrage zufolge nicht, wie man den Band eines mehrbändigen Werkes sucht, und fast die Hälfte aller Befragten sucht nach Aufsätzen von Sammelwerken. Benutzer unterscheiden überwiegend bei ihrer Suche nicht, ob sie in einem deutschen oder einem ausländischen Katalog recherchieren. Um zu einheitlichen Suchergebnissen bei der Suche in deutschen und ausländischen Katalogen zu gelangen, sollte eine Annäherung der Standards angestrebt werden.
    Type
    a
  20. Chandrakar, R.: Mapping CCF to MARC21 : an experimental approach (2001) 0.00 
    0.002002062 = product of:
  0.0100103095 = sum of:
    0.0100103095 = weight(_text_:a in 5437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0100103095 = score(doc=5437,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 5437, 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=5437)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

  • d 42
  • e 16
  • f 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 57
  • m 3
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Classifications