Search (86 results, page 1 of 5)

0.062367752 = product of:
  0.124735504 = sum of:
    0.124735504 = sum of:
      0.065297656 = weight(_text_:work in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.065297656 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.054837555 = queryNorm
          0.32441974 = fieldWeight in 1757, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1757)
      0.059437852 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059437852 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.054837555 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1757, 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=1757)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Computers play an important role in the development of bibliographic databases. Exchange formats are needed for the generation and exchange of bibliographic data at different levels: international, national, regional and local. Discusses the formats available at national and international level such as the International Standard Exchange Format (ISO 2709); the various MARC formats and the Common Communication Format (CCF). Work on Indian standards involving the Bureau of Indian Standards, the National Information System for Science and Technology (NISSAT) and other institutions proceeds only slowly

Source

DESIDOC bulletin of information technology. 17(1997) no.5, S.17-22

0.054571785 = product of:
  0.10914357 = sum of:
    0.10914357 = sum of:
      0.05713545 = weight(_text_:work in 5178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05713545 = score(doc=5178,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.054837555 = queryNorm
          0.28386727 = fieldWeight in 5178, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5178)
      0.05200812 = weight(_text_:22 in 5178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05200812 = score(doc=5178,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.054837555 = 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(1/2)

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

0.047432087 = product of:
  0.094864175 = sum of:
    0.094864175 = sum of:
      0.05771552 = weight(_text_:work in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05771552 = score(doc=2422,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.054837555 = queryNorm
          0.28674924 = fieldWeight in 2422, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2422)
      0.03714866 = weight(_text_:22 in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03714866 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.054837555 = 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

0.038979847 = product of:
  0.077959694 = sum of:
    0.077959694 = sum of:
      0.040811036 = weight(_text_:work in 185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040811036 = score(doc=185,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.054837555 = queryNorm
          0.20276234 = fieldWeight in 185, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=185)
      0.03714866 = weight(_text_:22 in 185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03714866 = score(doc=185,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.054837555 = 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

0.03152168 = product of:
  0.06304336 = sum of:
    0.06304336 = product of:
      0.12608673 = sum of:
        0.12608673 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12608673 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 3.2002 19:45:22

Source

Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.2, S.198-219

0.029718926 = product of:
  0.059437852 = sum of:
    0.059437852 = product of:
      0.118875705 = sum of:
        0.118875705 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.118875705 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

0.02600406 = product of:
  0.05200812 = sum of:
    0.05200812 = product of:
      0.10401624 = sum of:
        0.10401624 = weight(_text_:22 in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10401624 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = 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

0.02600406 = product of:
  0.05200812 = sum of:
    0.05200812 = product of:
      0.10401624 = sum of:
        0.10401624 = weight(_text_:22 in 4973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10401624 = score(doc=4973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

26. 8.2000 19:22:35

0.02600406 = product of:
  0.05200812 = sum of:
    0.05200812 = product of:
      0.10401624 = sum of:
        0.10401624 = weight(_text_:22 in 6838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10401624 = score(doc=6838,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6838, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6838)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 13(2001) H.3, S.20-22

0.02600406 = product of:
  0.05200812 = sum of:
    0.05200812 = product of:
      0.10401624 = sum of:
        0.10401624 = weight(_text_:22 in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10401624 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = 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

0.023086209 = product of:
  0.046172418 = sum of:
    0.046172418 = product of:
      0.092344835 = sum of:
        0.092344835 = weight(_text_:work in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.092344835 = score(doc=3895,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.4587988 = fieldWeight in 3895, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes the work of the British and European book industry communication stadards organizations BIC (Book Industry Communication) in the UK, EDItEUR (its pan-European counterpart), and BISAC (Book Industry Systems Advisory Committe). The work of the organisations enables collaboration between the publishing, bookselling, library and manufacturing sectors of the industry worldwide. Discusses Electronic Data Interchange (EDI); TeleOrdering; the international EDIFACT standard, EDI with SGML; and published lists of mandatory and recommended data elements for publishers' bibliographic databases

0.023086209 = product of:
  0.046172418 = sum of:
    0.046172418 = product of:
      0.092344835 = sum of:
        0.092344835 = weight(_text_:work in 122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.092344835 = score(doc=122,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.4587988 = fieldWeight in 122, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=122)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In 2015, the PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC was tasked to identify and address linked data identifiers deployment in the current MARC format. By way of a pilot test, a survey, MARC Discussion papers, Proposals, etc., the Task Group initiated and introduced changes to MARC encoding. The Task Group succeeded in laying the ground work for preparing library data transition from MARC data to a linked data, RDF environment.

0.022289194 = product of:
  0.04457839 = sum of:
    0.04457839 = product of:
      0.08915678 = sum of:
        0.08915678 = weight(_text_:22 in 6077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08915678 = score(doc=6077,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6077, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6077)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

2. 8.2001 16:22:33

0.021206036 = product of:
  0.042412072 = sum of:
    0.042412072 = product of:
      0.084824145 = sum of:
        0.084824145 = weight(_text_:work in 5441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084824145 = score(doc=5441,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.4214336 = fieldWeight in 5441, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5441)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Over the past few years there has been a significant amount of work in the area of cataloging internet resources, primarily using new metadata standards like the Dublin Core, but there has been little work on applying new data description formats like SGML and XML to traditional cataloging practices. What little work has been done in the area of using SGML and XML for traditional bibliographic description has primarily been based on the concept of converting MARC tagging into XML tagging. I suggest that, rather than attempting to convert existing MARC tagging into a new syntax based on SGML or XML, a more fruitful possibility is to return to the cataloging standards and describe their inherent structure, learning from how MARC has been used successfully in modern OPAC while attempting to avoid MARC's rigid field-based restrictions.

0.021014454 = product of:
  0.042028908 = sum of:
    0.042028908 = product of:
      0.084057815 = sum of:
        0.084057815 = weight(_text_:22 in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084057815 = score(doc=2408,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2408, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2408)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 1.2007 18:31:22

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.43-58

0.021014454 = product of:
  0.042028908 = sum of:
    0.042028908 = product of:
      0.084057815 = sum of:
        0.084057815 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084057815 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9.12.2005 19:22:38

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.175-181

0.020200431 = product of:
  0.040400863 = sum of:
    0.040400863 = product of:
      0.080801725 = sum of:
        0.080801725 = weight(_text_:work in 5579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.080801725 = score(doc=5579,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.40144894 = fieldWeight in 5579, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5579)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Evaluates current research into bibliographic relationships sparked off by B.B. Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (LRTS 35(1991) no.4, S.393-405) and R.P. Smiraglia's taxonomy of the derivative bibliographic relationship (PhD dissertation, Chicago Univ., Graduate Library School, 1992). These researches provide the context for a discussion of recent research and standards work. Reevaluates research on the sequential relationship drawn from work conducted on periodicals and the implications of that research is applied to cataloguing system design. Evaluates the conceptual designs proposed by researchers such as G.H. Leazer and M. Gorman's and uses them in a critique of the USMARC format for bibliographic description

0.020200431 = product of:
  0.040400863 = sum of:
    0.040400863 = product of:
      0.080801725 = sum of:
        0.080801725 = weight(_text_:work in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.080801725 = score(doc=119,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.40144894 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) has formal relationships with the Library of Congress (LC), Share-VDE, and Linked Data for Production Phase 2 (LD4P2) for work on Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME), and PCC institutions have been very active in the exploration of MARC to BIBFRAME conversion processes. This article will review the involvement of PCC in the development of BIBFRAME and examine the work of LC, Share-VDE, and LD4P2 on MARC to BIBFRAME conversion. It will conclude with a discussion of areas for further exploration by the PCC leading up to the creation of PCC conversion specifications and PCC BIBFRAME data.

0.01857433 = product of:
  0.03714866 = sum of:
    0.03714866 = product of:
      0.07429732 = sum of:
        0.07429732 = weight(_text_:22 in 5228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07429732 = score(doc=5228,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5228, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5228)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

29. 9.1996 18:58:22

0.01857433 = product of:
  0.03714866 = sum of:
    0.03714866 = product of:
      0.07429732 = sum of:
        0.07429732 = weight(_text_:22 in 1544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07429732 = score(doc=1544,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1544, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1544)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2016 12:15:46