Search (30 results, page 2 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  1. MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications part 2 (2004) 0.00
    0.004128369 = product of:
      0.037155323 = sum of:
        0.037155323 = product of:
          0.074310645 = sum of:
            0.074310645 = weight(_text_:22 in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.074310645 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03917671 = queryNorm
                0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2841, 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=2841)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2
  2. McCallum, S.H.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) (2004) 0.00
    0.0023590683 = product of:
      0.021231614 = sum of:
        0.021231614 = product of:
          0.042463228 = sum of:
            0.042463228 = weight(_text_:22 in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042463228 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03917671 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 81, 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=81)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.82-88
  3. METS: an overview & tutorial : Metadata Encoding & Transmission Standard (METS) (2001) 0.00
    0.0022314154 = product of:
      0.020082738 = sum of:
        0.020082738 = weight(_text_:of in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020082738 = score(doc=1323,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
      0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    
    Abstract
    Maintaining a library of digital objects of necessaryy requires maintaining metadata about those objects. The metadata necessary for successful management and use of digital objeets is both more extensive than and different from the metadata used for managing collections of printed works and other physical materials. While a library may record descriptive metadata regarding a book in its collection, the book will not dissolve into a series of unconnected pages if the library fails to record structural metadata regarding the book's organization, nor will scholars be unable to evaluate the book's worth if the library fails to note that the book was produced using a Ryobi offset press. The Same cannot be said for a digital version of the saure book. Without structural metadata, the page image or text files comprising the digital work are of little use, and without technical metadata regarding the digitization process, scholars may be unsure of how accurate a reflection of the original the digital version provides. For internal management purposes, a library must have access to appropriate technical metadata in order to periodically refresh and migrate the data, ensuring the durability of valuable resources.
  4. Guenther, R.; McCallum, S.: New metadata standards for digital resources : MODS and METS (2003) 0.00
    0.0021780923 = product of:
      0.01960283 = sum of:
        0.01960283 = weight(_text_:of in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01960283 = score(doc=1250,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
      0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    
    Abstract
    Metadata has taken an a new took with the advent of XML and digital resources. XML provides a new versatile structure for tagging and packaging metadata as the rapid proliferation of digital resources demands both rapidly produced descriptive data and the encoding of more types of metadata. Two emerging standards are attempting to harness these developments for library needs. The first is the Metadata Object and Description Schema (MODS), a MARC-compatible XML schema for encoding descriptive data. The second standard is the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS), a highly flexible XML schema for packaging the descriptive metadata and various other important types of metadata needed to assure the use and preservation of digital resources.
    Source
    Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 29(2003) no.2, S.11-15
  5. Wu, C.-J.: Mapping the Dublin Core to the Chinese MARC (1998) 0.00
    0.0020369943 = product of:
      0.018332949 = sum of:
        0.018332949 = weight(_text_:of in 6269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018332949 = score(doc=6269,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 6269, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6269)
      0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    
    Abstract
    Discusses how to map the Dublin Core to the Chinese MARC that is used by most of the libraries in Taiwan
    Source
    Bulletin of the Library Association of China. 1998, no.60, Jun., S.61-73
  6. Tosaka, Y.; Park, J.-r.: RDA: Resource description & access : a survey of the current state of the art (2013) 0.00
    0.0018595128 = product of:
      0.016735615 = sum of:
        0.016735615 = weight(_text_:of in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016735615 = score(doc=677,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
      0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    
    Abstract
    Resource Description & Access (RDA) is intended to provide a flexible and extensible framework that can accommodate all types of content and media within rapidly evolving digital environments while also maintaining compatibility with the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2). The cataloging community is grappling with practical issues in navigating the transition from AACR2 to RDA; there is a definite need to evaluate major subject areas and broader themes in information organization under the new RDA paradigm. This article aims to accomplish this task through a thorough and critical review of the emerging RDA literature published from 2005 to 2011. The review mostly concerns key areas of difference between RDA and AACR2, the relationship of the new cataloging code to metadata standards, the impact on encoding standards such as Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), end user considerations, and practitioners' views on RDA implementation and training. Future research will require more in-depth studies of RDA's expected benefits and the manner in which the new cataloging code will improve resource retrieval and bibliographic control for users and catalogers alike over AACR2. The question as to how the cataloging community can best move forward to the post-AACR2/MARC environment must be addressed carefully so as to chart the future of bibliographic control in the evolving environment of information production, management, and use.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.651-662
  7. Zapounidou, S.; Sfakakis, M.; Papatheodorou, C.: Library data integration : towards BIBFRAME mapping to EDM (2014) 0.00
    0.0017284468 = product of:
      0.015556021 = sum of:
        0.015556021 = weight(_text_:of in 1589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015556021 = score(doc=1589,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 1589, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1589)
      0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    
    Abstract
    Integration of library data into the Linked Data environment is a key issue in libraries and is approached on the basis of interoperability between library data conceptual models. Achieving interoperability for different representations of the same or related entities between the library and cultural heritage domains shall enhance rich bibliographic data reusability and support the development of new data-driven information services. This paper aims to contribute to the desired interoperability by attempting to map core semantic paths between the BIBFRAME and EDM conceptual models. BIBFRAME is developed by the Library of Congress to support transformation of legacy library data in MARC format into linked data. EDM is the model developed for and used in the Europeana Cultural Heritage aggregation portal.
  8. McDonough, J.P.: SGML and USMARC standard : applying markup to bibliographic data (1998) 0.00
    0.001330559 = product of:
      0.011975031 = sum of:
        0.011975031 = weight(_text_:of in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011975031 = score(doc=1425,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
      0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    
    Abstract
    The recent increase in electronic publishing has led many in the library community to consider altering standards for bibliographic data to promote greater compatibility between digital works and their bibliographic representation. SGML has been prominently mentioned as a mechanism for encoding bibliographic data. Examines the problems and potential of applying SGML to to USMARC record standard, with a particular emphasis on issues of field order and repeatability, character set encoding, and obsolete fields
  9. Hopkins, J.: USMARC as metadata shell (1999) 0.00
    0.001330559 = product of:
      0.011975031 = sum of:
        0.011975031 = weight(_text_:of in 933) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011975031 = score(doc=933,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 933, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=933)
      0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    
    Abstract
    This paper introduces the two concepts of Content and Coding which together define Metadata. The encoding scheme used to hold the data content is referred to as a shell. One such shell is the MARC format. In this paper I describe the MARC format and its application to Internet resources, primarily through the OCLC-sponsored Intercat Project
    Source
    Journal of Internet cataloging. 2(1999) no.1, S.55-68
  10. Lupovici, C.: ¬L'¬information secondaire du document primaire : format MARC ou SGML? (1997) 0.00
    0.0011642392 = product of:
      0.010478153 = sum of:
        0.010478153 = weight(_text_:of in 892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010478153 = score(doc=892,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 892, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=892)
      0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    
    Abstract
    Secondary information, e.g. MARC based bibliographic records, comprises structured data for identifying, tagging, retrieving and management of primary documents. SGML, the standard format for coding content and structure of primary documents, was introduced in 1986 as a publishing tool but is now being applied to bibliographic records. SGML now comprises standard definitions (DTD) for books, serials, articles and mathematical formulae. A simplified version (HTML) is used for Web pages. Pilot projects to develop SGML as a standard for bibliographic exchange include the Dublin Core, listing 13 descriptive elements for Internet documents; the French GRISELI programme using SGML for exchanging grey literature and US experiments on reformatting USMARC for use with SGML-based records