Search (57 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Weber, R.: "Functional requirements for bibliographic records" und Regelwerksentwicklung (2001) 0.10 
    0.09626407 = product of:
  0.19252814 = sum of:
    0.19252814 = sum of:
      0.10642105 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10642105 = score(doc=6838,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = 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)
      0.08610709 = weight(_text_:22 in 6838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08610709 = score(doc=6838,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = 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)
    Source
    Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 13(2001) H.3, S.20-22
  2. Tennant, R.: ¬A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty-first century (2004) 0.08 
    0.07779312 = product of:
  0.15558624 = sum of:
    0.15558624 = sum of:
      0.086001195 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.086001195 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = 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)
      0.06958504 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06958504 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = 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)
    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
  3. Riva, P.: Mapping MARC 21 linking entry fields to FRBR and Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (2004) 0.07 
    0.069443956 = product of:
  0.13888791 = sum of:
    0.13888791 = sum of:
      0.10198487 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10198487 = score(doc=136,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = 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)
      0.03690304 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03690304 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = 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)
    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
  4. Coyle, K.: Future considerations : the functional library systems record (2004) 0.07 
    0.06760262 = product of:
  0.13520524 = sum of:
    0.13520524 = sum of:
      0.086001195 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.086001195 = score(doc=562,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = 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)
      0.04920405 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04920405 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = 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)
    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
  5. Aalberg, T.; Haugen, F.B.; Husby, O.: ¬A Tool for Converting from MARC to FRBR (2006) 0.06 
    0.059152298 = product of:
  0.118304595 = sum of:
    0.118304595 = sum of:
      0.07525105 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07525105 = score(doc=2425,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = 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)
      0.043053545 = weight(_text_:22 in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043053545 = score(doc=2425,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = 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)
    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
  6. Jacobs, J.W.; Summers, E.; Ankersen, E.: Cyril: expanding the horizons of MARC21 (2004) 0.06 
    0.05500804 = product of:
  0.11001608 = sum of:
    0.11001608 = sum of:
      0.06081203 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06081203 = score(doc=4749,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 4749, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4749)
      0.04920405 = weight(_text_:22 in 4749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04920405 = score(doc=4749,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4749, 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=4749)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Describes the construction of the author's Perl program, Cyril, to add vernacular Russian (Cyrillic) characters to existing MARC records. The program takes advantage of the ALA-LC standards for Romanization to create character mappings that "de-transliterate" specified MARC fields. The creation of Cyril raises both linguistic and technical issues, which are thoroughly examined. Concludes by considering the implications for cataloging and authority control standards, as we move to a multilingual, multi-script bibliographic environment.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.8-17
  7. El-Sherbini, M.A.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2005-06 (2008) 0.06 
    0.05500804 = product of:
  0.11001608 = sum of:
    0.11001608 = sum of:
      0.06081203 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06081203 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
      0.04920405 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04920405 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, 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=249)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper reviews library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2005-06. It covers pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of cataloging; Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (FRBR); metadata and its applications and relation to Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC); cataloging tools and standards; authority control; and recruitment, training, and the changing role of catalogers.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  8. Andresen, L.: After MARC - what then? (2004) 0.05 
    0.05070197 = product of:
  0.10140394 = sum of:
    0.10140394 = sum of:
      0.0645009 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0645009 = score(doc=4751,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 4751, 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=4751)
      0.03690304 = weight(_text_:22 in 4751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03690304 = score(doc=4751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4751, 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=4751)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The article discusses the future of the MARC formats and outlines how future cataloguing practice and bibliographic records might look. Background and basic functionality of the MARC formats are outlined, and it is pointed out that MARC is manifest in several different formats. This is illustrated through a comparison between the MARC21 format and the Danish MARC format "danMARC2". It is argued that present cataloguing codes and MARC formats are based primarily on the Paris principles and that "functional requirements for bibliographic records" (FRBR) would serve as a more solid and user-oriented platform for future development of cataloguing codes and formats. Furthermore, it is argued that MARC is a library-specific format, which results in neither exchange with library external sectors nor inclusion of other texts being facilitated. XML could serve as the technical platform for a model for future registrations, consisting of some core data and different supplements of data necessary for different sectors and purposes.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.40-51
  9. Carvalho, J.R. de; Cordeiro, M.I.; Lopes, A.; Vieira, M.: Meta-information about MARC : an XML framework for validation, explanation and help systems (2004) 0.05 
    0.048132036 = product of:
  0.09626407 = sum of:
    0.09626407 = sum of:
      0.053210527 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053210527 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 2848, 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=2848)
      0.043053545 = weight(_text_:22 in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043053545 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2848, 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=2848)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article proposes a schema for meta-information about MARC that can express at a fairly comprehensive level the syntactic and semantic aspects of MARC formats in XML, including not only rules but also all texts and examples that are conveyed by MARC documentation. It can be thought of as an XML version of the MARC or UNIMARC manuals, for both machine and human usage. The article explains how such a schema can be the central piece of a more complete framework, to be used in conjunction with "slim" record formats, providing a rich environment for the automated processing of bibliographic data.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.131-137
  10. Mönch, C.; Aalberg, T.: Automatic conversion from MARC to FRBR (2003) 0.04 
    0.04225164 = product of:
  0.08450328 = sum of:
    0.08450328 = sum of:
      0.053750746 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053750746 = score(doc=2422,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = 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)
      0.030752534 = weight(_text_:22 in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030752534 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = 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)
    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
  11. Croissant, C.R.: MARC21 und die anglo-amerikanische Katalogisierungspraxis (2004) 0.04 
    0.04125603 = product of:
  0.08251206 = sum of:
    0.08251206 = sum of:
      0.04560902 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04560902 = score(doc=1764,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = 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)
      0.03690304 = weight(_text_:22 in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03690304 = score(doc=1764,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = 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)
    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
  12. McCallum, S.H.: Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC): 1975-2007 (2009) 0.04 
    0.04125603 = product of:
  0.08251206 = sum of:
    0.08251206 = sum of:
      0.04560902 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04560902 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 3841, 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=3841)
      0.03690304 = weight(_text_:22 in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03690304 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3841, 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=3841)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This entry describes the development of the MARC Communications format. After a brief overview of the initial 10 years it describes the succeeding phases of development up to the present. This takes the reader through the expansion of the format for all types of bibliographic data and for a multiple character scripts. At the same time a large business community was developing that offered products based on the format to the library community. The introduction of the Internet in the 1990s and the Web technology brought new opportunities and challenges and the format was adapted to this new environment. There has been a great deal of international adoption of the format that has continued into the 2000s. More recently new syntaxes for MARC 21 and models are being explored.
    Date
    27. 8.2011 14:22:38
  13. German, L.: Bibliographic utilities (2009) 0.04 
    0.03723961 = product of:
  0.07447922 = sum of:
    0.07447922 = product of:
      0.14895844 = sum of:
        0.14895844 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14895844 = score(doc=3858,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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. Maxwell, R.L.: Bibliographic control (2009) 0.03 
    0.030167533 = product of:
  0.060335066 = sum of:
    0.060335066 = product of:
      0.12067013 = sum of:
        0.12067013 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12067013 = score(doc=3750,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  15. Hegna, K.; Murtomaa, E.: Data mining MARC to find : FRBR? (2003) 0.03 
    0.026605263 = product of:
  0.053210527 = sum of:
    0.053210527 = product of:
      0.10642105 = sum of:
        0.10642105 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10642105 = score(doc=69,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 32(2003) no.3, S.52-55
  16. Oehlschläger, S.: Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme : Aus der 46. Sitzung am 21. und 22. April 2004 im Bibliotheksservice-Zentrum Baden-Württemberg in Konstanz (2004) 0.02 
    0.024066018 = product of:
  0.048132036 = sum of:
    0.048132036 = sum of:
      0.026605263 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026605263 = score(doc=2434,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = 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)
      0.021526773 = weight(_text_:22 in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021526773 = score(doc=2434,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = 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)
    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.
  17. McBride, J.L.: Faceted subject access for music through USMARC : a case for linked fields (2000) 0.02 
    0.02280451 = product of:
  0.04560902 = sum of:
    0.04560902 = product of:
      0.09121804 = sum of:
        0.09121804 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09121804 = score(doc=5403,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  18. Boeuf, P. le; Doerr, M.: Harmonising CIDOC CRM and FRBR (2007) 0.02 
    0.02280451 = product of:
  0.04560902 = sum of:
    0.04560902 = product of:
      0.09121804 = sum of:
        0.09121804 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09121804 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 36(2007) no.4, S.90-92
  19. Geißelmann, F.: Arbeitsergebnisse der Arbeitsgruppe Codes (2000) 0.02 
    0.021526773 = product of:
  0.043053545 = sum of:
    0.043053545 = product of:
      0.08610709 = sum of:
        0.08610709 = weight(_text_:22 in 4973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08610709 = score(doc=4973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4973, 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=4973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    26. 8.2000 19:22:35
  20. Salgáné, M.M.: Our electronic era and bibliographic informations computer-related bibliographic data formats, metadata formats and BDML (2005) 0.02 
    0.021500299 = product of:
  0.043000598 = sum of:
    0.043000598 = product of:
      0.086001195 = sum of:
        0.086001195 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.086001195 = score(doc=3005,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.4866305 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Using new communication technologies libraries must face continuously new questions, possibilities and expectations. This study discusses library-related aspects of our electronic era and how computer-related data formats affect bibliographic dataprocessing to give a summary of the most important results. First bibliographic formats for the exchange of bibliographic and related information in the machine-readable form between different types of computer systems were created more than 30 years ago. The evolution of information technologies leads to the improvement of computer systems. In addition to the development of computers and media types Internet has a great influence on data structure as well. Since the introduction of MARC bibliographic format, technology of data exchange between computers and between different computer systems has reached a very sophisticated stage and has contributed to the creation of new standards in this field. Today libraries work with this new infrastructure that induces many challenges. One of the most significant challenges is moving from a relatively homogenous bibliographic environment to a diverse one. Despite these challenges such changes are achievable and necessary to exploit possibilities of new metadata and technologies like the Internet and XML (Extensible Markup Language). XML is an open standard, a universal language for data on the Web. XML is nearly six-years-old standard designed for the description and computer-based management of (semi)-structured data and structured texts. XML gives developers the power to deliver structured data from a wide variety of applications and it is also an ideal format from server-to-server transfer of structured data. XML also isn't limited for Internet use and is an especially valuable tool in the field of library. In fact, XML's main strength - organizing information - makes it perfect for exchanging data between different systems. Tools that work with the XML can be used to process XML records without incurring additional costs associated with one's own software development. In addition, XML is also a suitable format for library web services. The Department of Computer-related Graphic Design and Library and Information Sciences of Debrecen University launched the BDML (Bibliographic Description Markup Language) development project in order to standardize bibliogrphic description with the help of XML.

Authors

Languages

  • e 38
  • d 18
  • f 1
  • More… Less…

Themes