Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Funktionelle Anforderungen an bibliografische Datensätze : Abschlussbericht der IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (2006) 0.01
    0.007748668 = product of:
      0.07361235 = sum of:
        0.060324617 = weight(_text_:deutsche in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060324617 = score(doc=2263,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11561814 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7224083 = idf(docFreq=1068, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024482876 = queryNorm
            0.52175736 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7224083 = idf(docFreq=1068, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
        0.013287731 = weight(_text_:und in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013287731 = score(doc=2263,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05426304 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024482876 = queryNorm
            0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
      0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    
    Footnote
    Als pdf unter: http://www.d-nb.de/standardisierung/pdf/frbr_deutsch.pdf und http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr-deutsch.pdf.
    Imprint
    Leipzig : Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
  2. Will, L.D.: UML model : as given in British Standard Draft for Development DD8723-5:2008 (2008) 0.00
    9.79096E-4 = product of:
      0.018602824 = sum of:
        0.018602824 = weight(_text_:und in 7636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018602824 = score(doc=7636,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05426304 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024482876 = queryNorm
            0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 7636, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7636)
      0.05263158 = coord(1/19)
    
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  3. Dextre Clarke, S.G.; Will, L.D.; Cochard, N.: ¬The BS8723 thesaurus data model and exchange format, and its relationship to SKOS (2008) 0.00
    9.79096E-4 = product of:
      0.018602824 = sum of:
        0.018602824 = weight(_text_:und in 6051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018602824 = score(doc=6051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05426304 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024482876 = queryNorm
            0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 6051, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6051)
      0.05263158 = coord(1/19)
    
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  4. Kaiser, M.; Lieder, H.J.; Majcen, K.; Vallant, H.: New ways of sharing and using authority information : the LEAF project (2003) 0.00
    7.93745E-4 = product of:
      0.015081154 = sum of:
        0.015081154 = weight(_text_:deutsche in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015081154 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11561814 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7224083 = idf(docFreq=1068, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024482876 = queryNorm
            0.13043934 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7224083 = idf(docFreq=1068, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
      0.05263158 = coord(1/19)
    
    Abstract
    This article presents an overview of the LEAF project (Linking and Exploring Authority Files)1, which has set out to provide a framework for international, collaborative work in the sector of authority data with respect to authority control. Elaborating the virtues of authority control in today's Web environment is an almost futile exercise, since so much has been said and written about it in the last few years.2 The World Wide Web is generally understood to be poorly structured-both with regard to content and to locating required information. Highly structured databases might be viewed as small islands of precision within this chaotic environment. Though the Web in general or any particular structured database would greatly benefit from increased authority control, it should be noted that our following considerations only refer to authority control with regard to databases of "memory institutions" (i.e., libraries, archives, and museums). Moreover, when talking about authority records, we exclusively refer to personal name authority records that describe a specific person. Although different types of authority records could indeed be used in similar ways to the ones presented in this article, discussing those different types is outside the scope of both the LEAF project and this article. Personal name authority records-as are all other "authorities"-are maintained as separate records and linked to various kinds of descriptive records. Name authority records are usually either kept in independent databases or in separate tables in the database containing the descriptive records. This practice points at a crucial benefit: by linking any number of descriptive records to an authorized name record, the records related to this entity are collocated in the database. Variant forms of the authorized name are referenced in the authority records and thus ensure the consistency of the database while enabling search and retrieval operations that produce accurate results. On one hand, authority control may be viewed as a positive prerequisite of a consistent catalogue; on the other, the creation of new authority records is a very time consuming and expensive undertaking. As a consequence, various models of providing access to existing authority records have emerged: the Library of Congress and the French National Library (Bibliothèque nationale de France), for example, make their authority records available to all via a web-based search service.3 In Germany, the Personal Name Authority File (PND, Personennamendatei4) maintained by the German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek, Frankfurt/Main) offers a different approach to shared access: within a closed network, participating institutions have online access to their pooled data. The number of recent projects and initiatives that have addressed the issue of authority control in one way or another is considerable.5 Two important current initiatives should be mentioned here: The Name Authority Cooperative (NACO) and Virtual International Authority File (VIAF).
  5. Heuvelmann, R.: FRBR-Strukturierung von MAB-Daten, oder : Wieviel MAB passt in FRBR? (2005) 0.00
    6.993543E-4 = product of:
      0.013287731 = sum of:
        0.013287731 = weight(_text_:und in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013287731 = score(doc=466,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.05426304 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024482876 = queryNorm
            0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 466, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=466)
      0.05263158 = coord(1/19)
    
    Abstract
    Die Expertengruppe MAB-Ausschuss (seit 2005: Expertengruppe Datenformate) hat sich im Verlauf des Jahres 2004 mit den FRBR und ihren Bezügen zum MABFormat befasst. Es wurde eine Tabelle FRBR => MAB erstellt (veröffentlicht unter http://www.ddb.de/professionell/pdf/frbr_mab.pdf), wichtige Ergebnisse wurden im Artikel "Maschinelles Austauschformat für Bibliotheken und die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records : Oder: Wieviel FRBR verträgt MAB?" im "Bibliotheksdienst" 39 (2005), Heft 10 zusammengefasst. Ergänzend dazu wurde bei der Arbeitsstelle Datenformate Der Deutschen Bibliothek versucht, MAB-Daten zu "frbrisieren", d. h. einzelne MAB-Datensätze in die vier Entitäten der Gruppe 1 (work / expression / manifestation / item) zu differenzieren. Ziel war nicht, einen fertigen OPAC-Baustein für die Indexierung, Benutzerführung oder Präsentation zu erstellen. Ziel war vielmehr, anhand von konkreten, in MAB strukturierten Daten die Schichten sichtbar zu machen. Ausgewählt für diesen Zweck wurde BISMAS, das "Bibliographische Informations-System zur Maschinellen Ausgabe und Suche" des BIS Oldenburg (www.bismas.de). In BISMAS ist es mit relativ geringem Aufwand möglich, die Präsentation eines Satzes - basierend auf der intern vorliegenden Datensatzstruktur, z.B. MAB - frei zu definieren. Die Gestaltung der Indices und der Ausgabeformate erfolgt in BISMAS mit Hilfe der Programmiersprache LM. Die Ergebnisse sollen hier anhand von Beispielen dargestellt werden.