Search (72 results, page 2 of 4)

0.03686449 = product of:
  0.04915265 = sum of:
    0.024370763 = weight(_text_:digital in 2312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024370763 = score(doc=2312,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.12326725 = fieldWeight in 2312, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2312)
    0.010828791 = weight(_text_:library in 2312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010828791 = score(doc=2312,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.08216808 = fieldWeight in 2312, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2312)
    0.013953096 = product of:
      0.027906192 = sum of:
        0.027906192 = weight(_text_:project in 2312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027906192 = score(doc=2312,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.13190566 = fieldWeight in 2312, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2312)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Footnote

The book is organized into four sections: introduction and results; presentation papers; background papers; and an appendix. The introduction by Barbara Tillett serves as a summary and report of the IME ICC meeting itself. The statement of the purpose of the meeting bears reporting in full (p. 6): "The goal for this meeting was to increase the ability to share cataloguing information worldwide by promoting standards for the content of bibliographic records and authority records used in library catalogues." The next item is a report summarizing the cataloguing Code comparisons prepared prior to the conference. As a mechanism for discussion, 18 codes were compared with the Paris Principles, the extent of compliance or divergence noted and discussed by representatives from the respective rule-making bodies. During the meeting the presentation of the comparisons took up half of the first day, but for the detailed responses one must return to the IME ICC website. The published summary is very dense, and difficult to follow if one is not very familiar with the Paris Principles or the codes being compared. The main outcome of the meeting follows, this is the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (draft, as approved Dec. 19, 2003 by IME ICC participants), accompanied by a useful Glossary. The most important eontribution of this volume is to serve as the permanent and official record of the Statement as it stands after the first IME ICC meeting. Subsequent meetings will surely suggest modifications and enhancements, but this version of the Statement needs to be widely read and commented on. To this end the website also makes available translations of the Statement into 15 European languages, and the glossary into four languages. Compared to the Paris Principles, this statement covers some familiar ground in the choice of access points and forms of names, but its overall scope is broader, explicitly referring to the role of authority records, entities in bibliographic records and relationships. It concludes with an appendix of "Objectives for the construction of cataloguing codes."
The next section collects three papers, all presented at the meeting by the people best placed to address the topics authoritatively and comprehensively. The first is by John D. Byrum, of the Library of Congress, and Chair of the ISBD Review Group, who clearly and concisely explains the history and role of the ISBDs in "IFLA's ISBD Programme. Purpose, process, and prospects." The next paper, "Brave new FRBR world" is by Patrick Le Boeuf, of the Bibliothèque nationale de France and Chair of the FRBR Review Group (a French version is available an the website). Drawing from his extensive expertise with FRBR, Le Boeuf explains what FRBR is and equally importantly is not, points to its impact in the present context of Code revision, and discusses insights relevant to the working group topics that can be drawn from FRBR. Closing this section is Barbara Tillett's contribution "A Virtual International Authority File," which signals an important change in thinking about international cooperation for bibliographic control. Earlier efforts focussed an getting agreement about form and structure of headings, this view stresses linking authority files to share the intellectual effort yet present headings to the user in the form that is most appropriate culturally.
The section of background papers starts most appropriately by reprinting the Statement of Principles from the 1961 Paris Conference and continues with another twelve papers of varying lengths, most written specifically for the IME ICC. For the published report the papers have been organized to follow the order of topics assigned to the Tive working groups: Working Group 1 Personal names; WG2 Corporate bodies; WG3 Seriality; WG4 Multivolume/multipart structures; and WG5 Uniform titles, GMDs. Pino Buizza and Mauro Guerrini co-author a substantial paper "Author and title access point control: On the way national bibliographic agencies face the issue forty years after the Paris Principles," which was first presented in Italian at the November 2002 workshop an Cataloguing and Authority Control in Rome. Issues that remain unresolved are which name or title to adopt, which form of the name or title, and which entry word to select, while choice of headings has become more uniform. The impact of catalogue language (meaning both the language of the cataloguing agency and of the majority of users of the catalogue) an these choices is explored by examining the headings used in ten national authority files for a full range of names, personal and corporate. The reflections presented are both practical and grounded in theory. Mauro Guerrini, assisted by Pino Buizza and Lucia Sardo, contributes a further new paper "Corporate bodies from ICCP up to 2003," which is an excellent survey of the surprisingly controversial issue of corporate bodies as authors, starting with Panizzi, Jewett, Cutter, Dziatzko, Fumagalli, and Lubetzky, through the debate at the Paris Conference, to the views of Verona, Domanovszky and Carpenter, and work under the auspices of IFLA an the Form and structure of corporate headings (FSCH) project and its Rvew, as well as a look at the archival standard ISAAR(CPF). This paper is the only one to have a comprehensive bibliography.
Ton Heijligers reflects an the relation of the IME ICC effort to AACR and calls for an examination of the principles and function of the concept of main entry in his brief paper "Main entry into the future?" Ingrid Parent's article "From ISBD (S) to ISBD(CR): a voyage of discovery and alignment" is reprinted from Serials Librarian as it tells of the successful project not only to revise an ISBD, but also to harmonize three Codes for serials cataloguing: ISBD (CR), ISSN and AACR. Gunilla Jonsson's paper "The bibliographic unit in the digital context" is a perceptive discussion of level of granularity issues which must be addressed in deciding what to catalogue. Practical issues and user expectation are important considerations, whether the material to be catalogued is digital or analog. Ann Huthwaite's paper "Class of materials concept and GMDs" as well as Tom Delsey's ensuing comments, originated as Joint Steering Committee restricted papers in 2002. It is a great service to have them made widely available in this form as they raise fundamental issues and motivate work that has since taken place, leading to the current major round of revision to AACR. The GMD issue is about more than a list of terms and their placement in the cataloguing record, it is intertwined with consideration of whether the concept of classes of materials is helpful in organizing cataloguing rules, if so, which classes are needed, and how to allow for eventual integration of new types of materials. Useful in the Code comparison exercise is an extract of the section an access points from the draft of revised RAK (German cataloguing rules). Four short papers compare aspects of the Russian Cataloguing Rules with RAK and AACR: Tatiana Maskhoulia covers corporate body headings; Elena Zagorskaya outlines current development an serials and other continuing resources; Natalia N. Kasparova covers multilevel structures; Ljubov Ermakova and Tamara Bakhturina describe the uniform title and GMD provisions. The website includes one more item by Kasparova "Bibliographic record language in multilingual electronic communication." The volume is rounded out by the appendix which includes the conference agenda, the full list of participants, and the reports from the five working groups. Not for the casual reader, this volume is a must read for anyone working an cataloguing code development at the national or international levels, as well as those teaching cataloguing. Any practising cataloguer will benefit from reading the draft statement of principles and the three presentation papers, and dipping into the background papers."

0.035239115 = product of:
  0.07047823 = sum of:
    0.043315165 = weight(_text_:library in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043315165 = score(doc=751,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
    0.027163066 = product of:
      0.054326132 = sum of:
        0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054326132 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 751, 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=751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

23. 1.2007 11:22:30

Footnote

Auch in: Library computing 19(2000) nos.3/4, S.180-191

Source

Library review. 50(2001) no.1, S.16-27

0.035239115 = product of:
  0.07047823 = sum of:
    0.043315165 = weight(_text_:library in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043315165 = score(doc=249,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
    0.027163066 = product of:
      0.054326132 = sum of:
        0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054326132 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

Source

Library resources and technical services. 52(2008) no.3, S.148-163

0.033157483 = product of:
  0.066314965 = sum of:
    0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045942668 = score(doc=1183,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=1183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The following discussion is in appreciation of the invaluable inspirations Pauline Cochrane, by her acumen and perspicacity, has implanted into my thinking regarding various applications of library and information science, especially those involving machine-readable records and subject categorization. It is indeed an honor for me at my age to be offered to contribute to Pauline's Festschrift when instead I should be concerned about my forthcoming obituary. In the following, I must give some Background to what formed my thinking before my involvement in the field and thus before I encountered Pauline.

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Imprint

Urbana-Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science

Source

Saving the time of the library user through subject access innovation: Papers in honor of Pauline Atherton Cochrane. Ed.: W.J. Wheeler

0.031933483 = product of:
  0.063866965 = sum of:
    0.046890046 = weight(_text_:library in 185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046890046 = score(doc=185,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.35579824 = fieldWeight in 185, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=185)
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=185,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

Source

Library resources and technical services. 44(2000) no.3, S.135-140

0.030079912 = product of:
  0.060159825 = sum of:
    0.039787523 = weight(_text_:library in 4751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039787523 = score(doc=4751,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 4751, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4751)
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 4751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=4751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.029461753 = product of:
  0.058923505 = sum of:
    0.028714169 = weight(_text_:library in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028714169 = score(doc=1166,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21788102 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.030209338 = product of:
      0.060418677 = sum of:
        0.060418677 = weight(_text_:project in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060418677 = score(doc=1166,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.28558412 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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).
NACO was established in 1976 and is hosted by the Library of Congress. At the beginning of 2003, nearly 400 institutions were involved in this undertaking, including 43 institutions from outside the United States.6 Despite the enormous success of NACO and the impressive annual growth of the initiative, there are requirements for participation that form an obstacle for many institutions: they have to follow the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) and employ the MARC217 data format. Participating institutions also have to belong to either OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) or RLG (Research Libraries Group) in order to be able to contribute records, and they have to provide a specified minimum number of authority records per year. A recent proof of concept project of the Library of Congress, OCLC and the German National Library-Virtual International Authority File (VIAF)8-will, in its first phase, test automatic linking of the records of the Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF) and the German Personal Name Authority File by using matching algorithms and software developed by OCLC. The results are expected to form the basis of a "Virtual International Authority File". The project will then test the maintenance of the virtual authority file by employing the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)9 to harvest the metadata for new, updated, and deleted records. When using the "Virtual International Authority File" a cataloguer will be able to check the system to see whether the authority record he wants to establish already exists. The final phase of the project will test possibilities for displaying records in the preferred language and script of the end user. Currently, there are still some clear limitations associated with the ways in which authority records are used by memory institutions. One of the main problems has to do with limited access: generally only large institutions or those that are part of a library network have unlimited online access to permanently updated authority records. Smaller institutions outside these networks usually have to fall back on less efficient ways of obtaining authority data, or have no access at all. Cross-domain sharing of authority data between libraries, archives, museums and other memory institutions simply does not happen at present. Public users are, by and large, not even aware that such things as name authority records exist and are excluded from access to these information resources.

0.028895756 = product of:
  0.057791512 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
    0.027163066 = product of:
      0.054326132 = sum of:
        0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054326132 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.82-88

0.028895756 = product of:
  0.057791512 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=2834,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 2834, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2834)
    0.027163066 = product of:
      0.054326132 = sum of:
        0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054326132 = score(doc=2834,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2834, 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=2834)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.52-64

0.028895756 = product of:
  0.057791512 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 4749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=4749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 4749, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4749)
    0.027163066 = product of:
      0.054326132 = sum of:
        0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 4749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054326132 = score(doc=4749,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.8-17

0.028895756 = product of:
  0.057791512 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=132,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 132, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=132)
    0.027163066 = product of:
      0.054326132 = sum of:
        0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054326132 = score(doc=132,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 132, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=132)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 48(2004) no.3, S.165-178

0.026429337 = product of:
  0.052858673 = sum of:
    0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032486375 = score(doc=4747,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 4747, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4747)
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=4747,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.025283787 = product of:
  0.050567575 = sum of:
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
    0.023767682 = product of:
      0.047535364 = sum of:
        0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047535364 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.131-137

0.025283787 = product of:
  0.050567575 = sum of:
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 4750, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4750)
    0.023767682 = product of:
      0.047535364 = sum of:
        0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047535364 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4750, 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=4750)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.6-7

0.025180552 = product of:
  0.050361104 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=3005,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
    0.019732658 = product of:
      0.039465316 = sum of:
        0.039465316 = weight(_text_:project in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039465316 = score(doc=3005,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.18654276 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

0.021778613 = product of:
  0.043557227 = sum of:
    0.030157281 = weight(_text_:digital in 5183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030157281 = score(doc=5183,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.15253544 = fieldWeight in 5183, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5183)
    0.013399946 = weight(_text_:library in 5183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013399946 = score(doc=5183,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.10167781 = fieldWeight in 5183, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5183)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

- Neues von den Mitgliedern (in Auswahl, Stand: April 2006) - - Bibliotheksverbund Bayern (BVB) / Verbundzentrale - - - Erweiterung des ALEPH-Einsatzes - - - Catalogue Enrichment ADAM - - - CD-ROM-Server - - - InfoGuide - - - Application Service Providing (ASP) - - Bibliotheksservice-Zentrum Baden-Württemberg (BSZ) - - - SWB-Verbunddatenbank - - - Catalogue Enrichment - - - OPUS - - - Internetportal für Bibliotheken, Archive und Museen (BAM) - - - Metadatenverwaltung für den Verteilten Dokumentenserver (VDS) - - - Virtuelle Auskunft mit drei Partnerbibliotheken eröffnet - - Die Deutsche Bibliothek - - - DissOnline Portal - - - DissOnline Tutor - - - CrissCross Ziel des Projektes CrissCross ist es, ein multilinguales, thesaurusbasiertes und benutzergerechtes Recherchevokabular zu schaffen. Hierzu werden die Sachschlagwörter der Schlagwortnormdatei (SWD) mit den Notationen der Dewey-Dezimalklassifikation (DDC) verbunden. Die Multilingualität wird durch die Verknüpfung mit ihren Äquivalenten in den beiden umfassenden Schlagwortnormdateien Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) und Rameau erreicht. Dabei wird auf den Ergebnissen des MACS-Projektes aufgebaut. Dem Nutzer wird so der Zugang zu heterogen erschlossenen Dokumenten ermöglicht, ohne dass er die Regeln des jeweiligen nationalen oder internationalen Erschließungsinstrumentes kennen muss. Projektpartner sind die Fakultät für Informations- und Kommunikationswissenschaften der Fachhochschule Köln und Die Deutsche Bibliothek. Das Projekt hat am 1. Februar 2006 begonnen und soll Ende Januar 2008 abgeschlossen sein. Technisch wird das Projekt im PICA/Iltis-System Der Deutschen Bibliothek und in der Arbeitsumgebung für die DDC "MelvilClass" realisiert. - - - DDC-vascoda
- - Gemeinsamer Bibliotheksverbund (GBV) / Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG) - - - WWW-Datenbanken - - - Virtuelle Fachbibliotheken - - - Verbundkatalog Internetquellen VKI - - - Öffentliche Bibliotheken im GBV - - Hessisches BibliotheksinformationsSystem (NeBIS) / Verbundzentrale - - - HeBIS-Portal - - - PND-Projekt - - - Catalogue Enrichment - - Hochschulbibliothekszentrum des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (HBZ) - - - Bibliographischer Werkzeugkasten - - - DigiAuskunft - - - Suchmaschine - - - Suchmaschinentechnologie - - - Verfügbarkeitsrecherche - - - Publikationssysteme/Digital Peer Publishing (DiPP) - - Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund Berlin-Brandenburg (KOBV) / KOBV-Zentrale - - - KOBV-Portal - - - Inbetriebnahme des neuen KOBV-Index - - - KOBV-Konsortialportal - - - OPUS- und Archivierungsdienste - - - Zeitschriftenartikel im Volltext

0.021671817 = product of:
  0.043343633 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 48(2004) no.2, S.130-143

0.01805985 = product of:
  0.0361197 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 47(2003) no.2, S.71-76

0.016243188 = product of:
  0.06497275 = sum of:
    0.06497275 = weight(_text_:library in 3845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06497275 = score(doc=3845,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.4930085 = fieldWeight in 3845, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3845)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Imprint

Oslo, Helsinki : University of Oslo Library, University of Helsinki Library

0.015231727 = product of:
  0.060926907 = sum of:
    0.060926907 = weight(_text_:digital in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060926907 = score(doc=5070,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 5070, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5070)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

"Der aktuelle Speicherort einer Publikation verliert angesichts der steigenden Zahl an digital vorliegenden und über das World Wide Weh verfügbaren Publikationen seine Bedeutung. Entscheidend für die Forschung sind Aufindbarkeit und schnelle Nutzungsmöglichkeit der Informationen. Global zu arbeiten, Daten, Informationen und Texte zu tauschen ist zur täglichen Routine für Wissenschaftler und Bibliothekare geworden. Deutschsprachige und ausländische Bibliotheken verwenden derzeit noch unterschiedliche Standards bei der Speicherung und dem Austausch von Katalogdaten. Die von der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft und der Andrew W. Mellon Foundation geförderten Projekte verfolgen das Ziel, die Daten deutschsprachiger Bibliotheken weltweit sichtbar zu machen. Das Interesse von Wissenschaftlern ist nicht auf ihre jeweilige eigene nationale und kulturelle Umgebung beschränkt. Sie benötigen Informationen über Dokumente und Daten aus der ganzen Welt. Gleichzeitig wollen sie die eigenen Forschungsergebnisse in der internationalen Forschungsgemeinschaft zur Diskussion stellen. Sprachraumübergreifende Standards für Metadaten und deren reibungsloser gegenseitiger Austausch sind Voraussetzung für die wissenschaftliche Kommunikation und für den individuellen Erfolg des einzelnen Forschers. Die Deutsche Bibliothek pflegt seit vielen Jahren Kooperationsbeziehungen auf nationaler und internationaler Ebene. Dazu gehören die Entwicklung und Anwendung von gemeinsamen Regeln und Standards sowie Produktion und Vertrieb von bibliografischen Dienstleistungen und die Pflege kooperativ geführter Datenbanken, insbesondere für Normdaten. Einen weiteren Schwerpunkt bilden Entwicklung und Anwendung moderner Technologien für die Langzeitarchivierung der Bestände im Rahmen internationaler Kooperationen, unabhängig davon, ob die Publikationen auf Papier, Mikrofilm oder digital vorliegen."