Search (135 results, page 2 of 7)

  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Kurth, M.; Ruddy, D.; Rupp, N.: Repurposing MARC metadata : using digital project experience to develop a metadata management design (2004) 0.02 
    0.023258494 = product of:
  0.04651699 = sum of:
    0.04651699 = sum of:
      0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009076704 = score(doc=4748,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4748, 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=4748)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Metadata and information technology staff in libraries that are building digital collections typically extract and manipulate MARC metadata sets to provide access to digital content via non-MARC schemes. Metadata processing in these libraries involves defining the relationships between metadata schemes, moving metadata between schemes, and coordinating the intellectual activity and physical resources required to create and manipulate metadata. Actively managing the non-MARC metadata resources used to build digital collections is something most of these libraries have only begun to do. This article proposes strategies for managing MARC metadata repurposing efforts as the first step in a coordinated approach to library metadata management. Guided by lessons learned from Cornell University library mapping and transformation activities, the authors apply the literature of data resource management to library metadata management and propose a model for managing MARC metadata repurposing processes through the implementation of a metadata management design.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.144-152
    Type
    a
  2. Andresen, L.: After MARC - what then? (2004) 0.02 
    0.023258494 = product of:
  0.04651699 = sum of:
    0.04651699 = sum of:
      0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 4751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009076704 = score(doc=4751,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 4751, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4751)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 4751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=4751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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
    Type
    a
  3. McCallum, S.H.: Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC): 1975-2007 (2009) 0.02 
    0.023258494 = product of:
  0.04651699 = sum of:
    0.04651699 = sum of:
      0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009076704 = score(doc=3841,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 3841, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3841)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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
    Type
    a
  4. Yee, R.; Beaubien, R.: ¬A preliminary crosswalk from METS to IMS content packaging (2004) 0.02 
    0.022779368 = product of:
  0.045558736 = sum of:
    0.045558736 = sum of:
      0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008118451 = score(doc=4752,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4752, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4752)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=4752,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4752, 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=4752)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    As educational technology becomes pervasive, demand will grow for library content to be incorporated into courseware. Among the barriers impeding interoperability between libraries and educational tools is the difference in specifications commonly used for the exchange of digital objects and metadata. Among libraries, Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) is a new but increasingly popular standard; the IMS content-package (IMS-CP) plays a parallel role in educational technology. This article describes how METS-encoded library content can be converted into digital objects for IMS-compliant systems through an XSLT-based crosswalk. The conceptual models behind METS and IMS-CP are compared, the design and limitations of an XSLT-based translation are described, and the crosswalks are related to other techniques to enhance interoperability.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.69-81
    Type
    a
  5. Tell, B.: On MARC and natural text searching : a review of Pauline Cochrane's inspirational thinking grafted onto a Swedish spy on library matters (2000) 0.02 
    0.022235535 = product of:
  0.04447107 = sum of:
    0.04447107 = sum of:
      0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007030784 = score(doc=1183,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1183, 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=1183)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=1183,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1183, 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=1183)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 9.1997 19:16:05
    Type
    a
  6. Keith, C.: Using XSLT to manipulate MARC metadata (2004) 0.02 
    0.022235535 = product of:
  0.04447107 = sum of:
    0.04447107 = sum of:
      0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007030784 = score(doc=4747,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4747, 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=4747)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=4747,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4747, 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=4747)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper describes the MARCXML architecture implemented at the Library of Congress. It gives an overview of the component pieces of the architecture, including the MARCXML schema and the MARCXML toolkit, while giving a brief tutorial on their use. Several different applications of the architecture and tools are discussed to illustrate the features of the toolkit being developed thus far. Nearly any metadata format can take advantage of the features of the toolkit, and the process of the toolkit enabling a new format is discussed. Finally, this paper intends to foster new ideas with regards to the transformation of descriptive metadata, especially using XML tools. In this paper the following conventions will be used: MARC21 will refer to MARC 21 records in the ISO 2709 record structure used today; MARCXML will refer to MARC 21 records in an XML structure.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.122-130
    Type
    a
  7. Riva, P.: Mapping MARC 21 linking entry fields to FRBR and Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (2004) 0.02 
    0.022235535 = product of:
  0.04447107 = sum of:
    0.04447107 = sum of:
      0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007030784 = score(doc=136,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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
    Type
    a
  8. MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications (2004) 0.02 
    0.021840166 = product of:
  0.043680333 = sum of:
    0.043680333 = product of:
      0.087360665 = sum of:
        0.087360665 = weight(_text_:22 in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.087360665 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7196, 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=7196)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1
  9. MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications part 2 (2004) 0.02 
    0.021840166 = product of:
  0.043680333 = sum of:
    0.043680333 = product of:
      0.087360665 = sum of:
        0.087360665 = weight(_text_:22 in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.087360665 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2
  10. Mönch, C.; Aalberg, T.: Automatic conversion from MARC to FRBR (2003) 0.02 
    0.021209672 = product of:
  0.042419344 = sum of:
    0.042419344 = sum of:
      0.011219106 = weight(_text_:a in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.011219106 = score(doc=2422,freq=22.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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
    Type
    a
  11. Croissant, C.R.: MARC21 und die anglo-amerikanische Katalogisierungspraxis (2004) 0.02 
    0.020749755 = product of:
  0.04149951 = sum of:
    0.04149951 = sum of:
      0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0040592253 = score(doc=1764,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=1764,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
    Date
    13. 8.2004 21:22:06
    Type
    a
  12. Wisser, K.M.; O'Brien Roper, J.: Maximizing metadata : exploring the EAD-MARC relationship (2003) 0.02 
    0.020383961 = product of:
  0.040767923 = sum of:
    0.040767923 = sum of:
      0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009567685 = score(doc=154,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
    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
  13. MacCallum, S.H.: Harmonization of USMARC, CANMARC, and UKMARC (2000) 0.02 
    0.017992042 = product of:
  0.035984084 = sum of:
    0.035984084 = sum of:
      0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0047838427 = score(doc=185,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 185, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=185)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=185,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 185, 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=185)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The Library of Congress, the National Library of Canada, and the British Library began discussing the harmonization of their respective MARC formats in 1994. The differences between USMARC and CAN/MARC were primarily in details rather than general specifications. Changes were made to CAN/MARC that eliminated many of the differences between CAN/MARC and the other two formats (USMARC and UKMARC). In addition, changes in USMARC that aligned USMARC and CAN/MARC were approved in 1997. The nature of the differences between UKMARC and CAN/MARC has necessitated a different process of harmonization. The differences between these two formats are many in extent, details, and approach to some requirements. Although total harmonization of USMARC-CAN/MARC with UKMARC is not feasible at this time, the British Library's program to add USMARC-CAN/MARC fields to UKMARC has increased the congruency of these formats. The National Library of Canada and the Library of Congress have begun to work on joint maintenance procedures and plan to have joint documentation.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  14. Behrens-Neumann, R.: Aus der 56. Sitzung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme am 23. April 2009 in Wien : ein Bericht (2009) 0.02 
    0.017291464 = product of:
  0.034582928 = sum of:
    0.034582928 = sum of:
      0.0033826875 = weight(_text_:a in 3041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0033826875 = score(doc=3041,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 3041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=3041,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
    Date
    22. 8.2009 13:11:01
    Type
    a
  15. Syré, L.: AACR2: Stellungnahme der AG Regionalbibliographie (2002) 0.01 
    0.01383317 = product of:
  0.02766634 = sum of:
    0.02766634 = sum of:
      0.00270615 = weight(_text_:a in 841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00270615 = score(doc=841,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
      0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02496019 = score(doc=841,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
    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
  16. Oehlschläger, S.: Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme : Aus der 46. Sitzung am 21. und 22. April 2004 im Bibliotheksservice-Zentrum Baden-Württemberg in Konstanz (2004) 0.01 
    0.012104024 = product of:
  0.024208048 = sum of:
    0.024208048 = sum of:
      0.0023678814 = weight(_text_:a in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0023678814 = score(doc=2434,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
      0.021840166 = weight(_text_:22 in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021840166 = score(doc=2434,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
    Type
    a
  17. Oehlschläger, S.: Aus der 49. Sitzung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme am 23. und 24. November 2005 in Köln (2006) 0.01 
    0.011876621 = product of:
  0.023753243 = sum of:
    0.023753243 = sum of:
      0.0016913437 = weight(_text_:a in 632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0016913437 = score(doc=632,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
      0.0220619 = weight(_text_:22 in 632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0220619 = score(doc=632,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
    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
  18. Oehlschläger, S.: Aus der 47. Sitzung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme am 3. und 4. November 2004 in Wien (2005) 0.01 
    0.008645732 = product of:
  0.017291464 = sum of:
    0.017291464 = sum of:
      0.0016913437 = weight(_text_:a in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0016913437 = score(doc=3124,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
      0.01560012 = weight(_text_:22 in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01560012 = score(doc=3124,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
    Date
    22. 1.2005 18:53:53
    Type
    a
  19. Matoria, R.K.; Upadhyay, P.K.: Migration of data from one library management system to another : a case study in India (2004) 0.00 
    0.00334869 = product of:
  0.00669738 = sum of:
    0.00669738 = product of:
      0.01339476 = sum of:
        0.01339476 = weight(_text_:a in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01339476 = score(doc=4200,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  20. Garden, A.: ¬L'avenir des formats de données (2001) 0.00 
    0.00334869 = product of:
  0.00669738 = sum of:
    0.00669738 = product of:
      0.01339476 = sum of:
        0.01339476 = weight(_text_:a in 4202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01339476 = score(doc=4202,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 4202, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

  • e 67
  • d 63
  • f 2
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 124
  • el 8
  • m 4
  • s 4
  • n 2
  • b 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Classifications