Search (82 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  1. Riva, P.: Mapping MARC 21 linking entry fields to FRBR and Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (2004) 0.13 
    0.12968396 = product of:
  0.2593679 = sum of:
    0.20748287 = weight(_text_:fields in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20748287 = score(doc=136,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.65650237 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = 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(2/4)
    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
  2. Jacobs, J.W.; Summers, E.; Ankersen, E.: Cyril: expanding the horizons of MARC21 (2004) 0.10 
    0.10375099 = product of:
  0.20750198 = sum of:
    0.13832192 = weight(_text_:fields in 4749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13832192 = score(doc=4749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.43766826 = fieldWeight in 4749, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4749)
    0.069180064 = weight(_text_:22 in 4749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069180064 = score(doc=4749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = 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(2/4)
    Abstract
    Describes the construction of the author's Perl program, Cyril, to add vernacular Russian (Cyrillic) characters to existing MARC records. The program takes advantage of the ALA-LC standards for Romanization to create character mappings that "de-transliterate" specified MARC fields. The creation of Cyril raises both linguistic and technical issues, which are thoroughly examined. Concludes by considering the implications for cataloging and authority control standards, as we move to a multilingual, multi-script bibliographic environment.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.8-17
  3. Murphy, C.: Curriculum-enhanced MARC (CEMARC) : a new cataloging format for school librarians (1995) 0.10 
    0.103318825 = product of:
  0.20663765 = sum of:
    0.12103168 = weight(_text_:fields in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12103168 = score(doc=5100,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.38295972 = fieldWeight in 5100, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5100)
    0.085605964 = weight(_text_:22 in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.085605964 = score(doc=5100,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 5100, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5100)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Briefly summarizes the problems encountered when attempting to use the USMARC cataloguing format in US school libraries and describes the development of CEMARC format by the Northwest Ohio Educational Technology Foundation (NWOET), which addresses the main problems by: offering sata entry guidelines for a minimum USMARC standard in order to clarify inconsistencies in application; and by suggesting enhancements and new fields that go beyond the USMARC standard. Concludes with brief notes on early CEMARC implementation
    Date
    11. 9.1996 19:22:20
    Source
    Literacy: traditional, cultural, technological. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the International Association of School Librarianship (selected papers), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh University, School of Library and Information Science, 17-22 Jul 94
  4. Aslanidi, M.; Papadakis, I.; Stefanidakis, M.: Name and title authorities in the music domain : alignment of UNIMARC authorities format with RDA (2018) 0.09 
    0.09078212 = product of:
  0.18156424 = sum of:
    0.12103168 = weight(_text_:fields in 5178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12103168 = score(doc=5178,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.38295972 = fieldWeight in 5178, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5178)
    0.060532555 = weight(_text_:22 in 5178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060532555 = score(doc=5178,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5178, 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=5178)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article discusses and highlights alignment issues that arise between UNIMARC Authorities Format and Resource Description and Access (RDA) regarding the creation of name and title authorities for musical works and creators. More specifically, RDA, as an implementation of the FRAD model, is compared with the UNIMARC Authorities Format (Updates 2012 and 2016) in an effort to highlight various cases where the discovery of equivalent fields between the two standards is not obvious. The study is envisioned as a first step in an ongoing process of working with the UNIMARC community throughout RDA's advancement and progression regarding the entities [musical] Work and Names.
    Date
    19. 3.2019 12:17:22
  5. USMARC format for authority data : including guidelines for content designation (1993) 0.07 
    0.06916096 = product of:
  0.27664384 = sum of:
    0.27664384 = weight(_text_:fields in 2713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27664384 = score(doc=2713,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.8753365 = fieldWeight in 2713, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2713)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Includes changes to all examples throughout the publication, as approved by MARBI in January 1993. Makes obsolete the second indicator position (non-filing characters) in all of the heading fields except the 130, which is uniform titles. Also new to this edition: definition of 18X heading fields for general, geographic and chronological subdivision headings, plus related 48X and 58X fields... 7XX fields for heading-linking entries... and the control field 003, named the 'control number identifier.' Also eliminates the national-level requirement codes at the field level
  6. MacCallum, S.H.: Harmonization of USMARC, CANMARC, and UKMARC (2000) 0.06 
    0.06484437 = product of:
  0.12968874 = sum of:
    0.0864512 = weight(_text_:fields in 185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0864512 = score(doc=185,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.27354267 = fieldWeight in 185, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=185)
    0.04323754 = weight(_text_:22 in 185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04323754 = score(doc=185,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = 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(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
  7. Studwell, W.E.; Rast, E.K.: Format integration and spatial data : a preliminary view (1993) 0.06 
    0.06113023 = product of:
  0.24452092 = sum of:
    0.24452092 = weight(_text_:fields in 6698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24452092 = score(doc=6698,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.77369547 = fieldWeight in 6698, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6698)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Provides a brief history and explains the principle of format integration. Gives 2 examples of monographic map records taken from the OCLC database. Explains significant or substantial differences between the present fixed fields and the projected fields for both these examples
  8. Parker, V.: MARC tags for cataloging cartographic materials (1999) 0.06 
    0.06113023 = product of:
  0.24452092 = sum of:
    0.24452092 = weight(_text_:fields in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24452092 = score(doc=5317,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.77369547 = fieldWeight in 5317, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5317)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This is a table of those MARC fields most frequently used when cataloging cartographic materials. The table gives fields both for monographs and for serials.
  9. McBride, J.L.: Faceted subject access for music through USMARC : a case for linked fields (2000) 0.06 
    0.057993226 = product of:
  0.2319729 = sum of:
    0.2319729 = weight(_text_:fields in 5403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2319729 = score(doc=5403,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.733992 = fieldWeight in 5403, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5403)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The USMARC Format for Bibliographic Description contains three fields (045, 047, and 048) designed to facilitate subject access to music materials. The fields cover three of the main aspects of subject description for music: date of composition, form or genre, and number of instruments or voices, respectively. The codes are rarely used for subject access, because of the difficulty of coding them and because false drops would result in retrieval of bibliographic records where more than one musical work is present, a situation that occurs frequently with sound recordings. It is proposed that the values of the fields be converted to natural language and that subfield 8 be used to link all access fields in a bibliographic record for greater precision in retrieval. This proposal has implications beyond music cataloging, especially for metadata and any bibliographic records describing materials containing many works and subjects.
  10. Holt, B.: Presentation of UNIMARC on the Web : new fields, including the one for electronic resources (1999) 0.05 
    0.05187072 = product of:
  0.20748287 = sum of:
    0.20748287 = weight(_text_:fields in 6020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20748287 = score(doc=6020,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.65650237 = fieldWeight in 6020, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6020)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  11. Riemer, J.J.: Adding 856 Fields to authority records : rationale and implications (1998) 0.04 
    0.042791158 = product of:
  0.17116463 = sum of:
    0.17116463 = weight(_text_:fields in 3715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17116463 = score(doc=3715,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.5415868 = fieldWeight in 3715, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3715)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Discusses ways of applying MARC Field 856 (Electronic Location and Access) to authority records in online union catalogues. In principle, each catalogue site location can be treated as the electronic record of the work concerned and the MARC Field 856 can then refer to this location as if it were referring to the location of a primary record. Although URLs may become outdated, the fact that they are located in specifically defined MARC Fields makes the data contained amenable to the same link maintenance software ae used for the electronic records themselves. Includes practical examples of typical union catalogue records incorporating MARC Field 856
  12. Jimenez, V.O.R.: Nuevas perspectivas para la catalogacion : metadatos ver MARC (1999) 0.04 
    0.036688272 = product of:
  0.14675309 = sum of:
    0.14675309 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14675309 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 5743, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5743)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    30. 3.2002 19:45:22
    Source
    Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.2, S.198-219
  13. Have, B.T.: Format integration : where are we? Report of the meeting of the ALCTS/LITA Serials Automation Interest Group, American Library Association, Midwinter Meeting, Los Angeles, February 1994 (1994) 0.04 
    0.03667814 = product of:
  0.14671256 = sum of:
    0.14671256 = weight(_text_:fields in 2396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14671256 = score(doc=2396,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.4642173 = fieldWeight in 2396, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2396)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The topic was the implementation of format integration which will enalbe materials which have some aspect of seriality but could also be defined as another format, to be catalogues as both. An update of OCLC's format integration was given. The 1st phase, encompassing the changes to fields 010-8XX, will be complete by the end of 1994. The 2nd phase, which will contain changes to the 007 and 008 fields and the introduction of the 006 field, is scheduled for completion by the end 0f 1995. Local system vendors were supportive of format integration and changes to relevant programs were underway in preparation for implementation. In a discussion of conversion of pre-format integration records to format integration MARC it was felt that adequate staff and funding would not be available for massive conversion projects and that only selected records would be converted
  14. MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications (2004) 0.03 
    0.034590032 = product of:
  0.13836013 = sum of:
    0.13836013 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13836013 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1
  15. Guenther, R.S.: ¬The USMARC Format for Classification Data : development and implementation (1992) 0.03 
    0.03458048 = product of:
  0.13832192 = sum of:
    0.13832192 = weight(_text_:fields in 2996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13832192 = score(doc=2996,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.43766826 = fieldWeight in 2996, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2996)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses the newly developed USMARC Format for Classification Data. It reviews its potential uses within an online system and its development as one of the USMARC standards for representing bibliographic and related information in machine-readable form. It provides a summary of the fields in the format, and considers the prospects for its implementation.
  16. Aliprand, J.M.: Linking of alternate graphic representation in USMARC authority records (1993) 0.03 
    0.03458048 = product of:
  0.13832192 = sum of:
    0.13832192 = weight(_text_:fields in 8341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13832192 = score(doc=8341,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.43766826 = fieldWeight in 8341, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8341)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Discusses the facilities in USMARC for linking fields containing non Roman scripts to their Romanized counterparts. In USMARC authority records, the 880 field: Alternate graphic representation (which contains the authentic non Roman text); is linked to the field that contains the same information in romanized form. The 880 field was added to the USMARC Format for Bibliographic Data in 1984 and to the USMARC Format for Authority Data in 1991. The new data elements in the Authority Format are modeled on those of the Bibliographic Format
  17. Guenther, R.S.: ¬The development and implementation of the USMARC format for classification data (1992) 0.03 
    0.03458048 = product of:
  0.13832192 = sum of:
    0.13832192 = weight(_text_:fields in 8865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13832192 = score(doc=8865,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.43766826 = fieldWeight in 8865, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8865)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses the newly developed USMARC Format for Classification Data. It reviews its potential uses within an online system and its development as one of the USMARC standards. It provides a summary of the fields in the format and considers the prospects for its implementation. The papaer describes an experiment currently being conducted at the Library of Congress to create USMARC classification records and use a classification database in classifying materials in the social sciences
  18. Parent, I.: IFLA study on functional requirements for bibliographic records : an Anglo-American perspective (1995) 0.03 
    0.03458048 = product of:
  0.13832192 = sum of:
    0.13832192 = weight(_text_:fields in 3080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13832192 = score(doc=3080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.43766826 = fieldWeight in 3080, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3080)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Presents a view on the work of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records Study Group on behalf of the Anglo-American cataloguing tradition. The study is examining the fundamental aspects of record design using the entity-attribute-relationship model to link data elements to the function that a user can perform while accessing a bibliographic record. The data and functions are being linked by UNIMARC fields
  19. Reinke, U.: ¬Der Austausch terminologischer Daten (1993) 0.03 
    0.03458048 = product of:
  0.13832192 = sum of:
    0.13832192 = weight(_text_:fields in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13832192 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.43766826 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Diplomarbeit at the University of Saarbrücken which contains the following topics: data exchange format; terminology management systems; terminological databases; terminological record; data elements; data categories; data fields, etc.: hard- and software-related difficulties for the structure of records; description of approaches for the development of an exchange format for terminological data (MATER, MicroMATER, NTRF, SGML); considerations concerning an SGML-like exchange format; perspectives
  20. Keyser, P.d.: Conversie van bibliografische gegevens (1997) 0.03 
    0.03458048 = product of:
  0.13832192 = sum of:
    0.13832192 = weight(_text_:fields in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13832192 = score(doc=96,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.43766826 = fieldWeight in 96, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=96)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Programs for converting bibligraphic data are not only of interest to libraries but also to researchers compiling bibliographies. However, few programs are currently available. In choosing a suitable program care must be taken to ensure that it is capable of identifying and converting all fields likely to be encountered, to the required format. Optical scanning can provide a convenient solution for converting printed output to machine-readable format. Increasing acceptance of standardised formats will facilitate exchange of data

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 62
  • d 13
  • f 3
  • nl 1
  • pl 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 75
  • s 4
  • b 2
  • m 2
  • l 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes