Search (26 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Hill, J.S.: Analog people for digital dreams : staffing and educational considerations for cataloging and metadata professionals (2005) 0.03 
    0.02823769 = product of:
  0.07059422 = sum of:
    0.00770594 = weight(_text_:a in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00770594 = score(doc=126,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 126, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=126)
    0.06288828 = sum of:
      0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.012630116 = score(doc=126,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 126, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=126)
      0.050258167 = weight(_text_:22 in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050258167 = score(doc=126,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 126, 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=126)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    As libraries attempt to incorporate increasing amounts of electronic resources into their catalogs, utilizing a growing variety of metadata standards, library and information science programs are grappling with how to educate catalogers to meet these challenges. In this paper, an employer considers the characteristics and skills that catalogers will need and how they might acquire them.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  2. Weber, J.: Nachlässe und Autographen im WWW : Dublin Core in Museen, Archiven und Bibliotheken (2000) 0.02 
    0.020501161 = product of:
  0.0512529 = sum of:
    0.004086692 = weight(_text_:a in 4458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004086692 = score(doc=4458,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 4458, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4458)
    0.04716621 = sum of:
      0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 4458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009472587 = score(doc=4458,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4458, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4458)
      0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 4458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037693623 = score(doc=4458,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4458, 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=4458)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Vielen Bibliotheksbenutzern wird inzwischen mehr und mehr bewußt: Alle Vernetzungsbestrebungen in Bibliotheksbereich, die lokale Traditionen zugunsten eines überregionalen Nachweises der Bestände aufgeben, handeln auch gegen die Benutzerinteressen. Wir werden uns zunehmend klar darüber, daß von den meisten wissenschaftlern der lokale Online-Katalog allein für Literaturrecherchen herangezogen wird, und zwar aus dem Grund, daß das gesuchte Buch so schnell und unkompliziert wie möglich zur Hand sein soll. Diese Feststellung impliziert auch den Gedanken, daß die Aufgabe guter lokaler Katalogisierungstraditionen möglicherweise ein unwiederbringlicher Verlust ist, ein Schritt hin zu einer schlechteren und oberflächlicheren Information. Wie sich eine überregionale Verbesserung der Nachweissituation unter gleichzeitiger Bewahrung lokaler Traditionen darstellen kann, ist Gegenstand der folgenden Ausführungen. Sie bahandeln das Thema aus dem Blickwinkel der Bilbiotheken, Archive und Museen, deren aufgabe im Nachweis und der Bewahrung von Unikaten besteht. die hier behandelte Metadatendiskussion bezieht sich also auf die Beschreibungskriterien nicht für digitales Material, sondern für Manuskripte, Briefe, Gegenstände
    Date
    12. 3.2000 19:25:22
    Type
    a
  3. Tennant, R.: ¬A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty-first century (2004) 0.02 
    0.019553987 = product of:
  0.04888497 = sum of:
    0.013347079 = weight(_text_:a in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013347079 = score(doc=2845,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.24964198 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
    0.03553789 = product of:
      0.07107578 = sum of:
        0.07107578 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07107578 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The current library bibliographic infrastructure was constructed in the early days of computers - before the Web, XML, and a variety of other technological advances that now offer new opportunities. General requirements of a modern metadata infrastructure for libraries are identified, including such qualities as versatility, extensibility, granularity, and openness. A new kind of metadata infrastructure is then proposed that exhibits at least some of those qualities. Some key challenges that must be overcome to implement a change of this magnitude are identified.
    Date
    9.12.2005 19:22:38
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.175-181
    Type
    a
  4. Hsieh-Yee, I.: Cataloging and metatdata education in North American LIS programs (2004) 0.02 
    0.018768111 = product of:
  0.046920277 = sum of:
    0.0076151006 = weight(_text_:a in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076151006 = score(doc=138,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
    0.039305177 = sum of:
      0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007893822 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
      0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031411353 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 138, 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=138)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This paper presents findings of a survey an the state of cataloging and metadata education. in ALA-accredited library and information science progranis in North America. The survey was conducted in response to Action Item 5.1 of the "Bibliographic Control of Web Resources: A Library of Congress Action Plan," which focuses an providing metadata education to new LIS professionals. The study found LIS programs increased their reliance an introductory courses to cover cataloging and metadata, but fewer programs than before had a cataloging course requirement. The knowledge of cataloging delivered in introductory courses was basic, and the coverage of metadata was limited to an overview. Cataloging courses showed similarity in coverage and practice and focused an print mater!als. Few cataloging educators provided exercises in metadata record creation using non-AACR standards. Advanced cataloging courses provided in-depth coverage of subject cataloging and the cataloging of nonbook resources, but offered very limited coverage of metadata. Few programs offered full courses an metadata, and even fewer offered advanced metadata courses. Metadata topics were well integrated into LIS curricula, but coverage of metadata courses varied from program to program, depending an the interests of instructors. Educators were forward-looking and agreed an the inclusion of specific knowledge and skills in metadata instruction. A series of actions were proposed to assist educators in providing students with competencies in cataloging and metadata.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  5. Wisser, K.M.; O'Brien Roper, J.: Maximizing metadata : exploring the EAD-MARC relationship (2003) 0.01 
    0.010135241 = product of:
  0.025338102 = sum of:
    0.009632425 = weight(_text_:a in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009632425 = score(doc=154,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
    0.015705677 = product of:
      0.031411353 = sum of:
        0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031411353 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Encoded Archival Description (EAD) has provided a new way to approach manuscript and archival collection representation. A review of previous representational practices and problems highlights the benefits of using EAD. This new approach should be considered a partner rather than an adversary in the access providing process. Technological capabilities now allow for multiple metadata schemas to be employed in the creation of the finding aid. Crosswalks allow for MARC records to be generated from the detailed encoding of an EAD finding aid. In the process of creating these crosswalks and detailed encoding, EAD has generated more changes in traditional processes and procedures than originally imagined. The North Carolina State University (NCSU) Libraries sought to test the process of crosswalking EAD to MARC, investigating how this process used technology as well as changed physical procedures. By creating a complex and indepth EAD template for finding aids, with accompanying related encoding analogs embedded within the element structure, MARC records were generated that required minor editing and revision for inclusion in the NCSU Libraries OPAC. The creation of this bridge between EAD and MARC has stimulated theoretical discussions about the role of collaboration, technology, and expertise in the ongoing struggle to maximize access to our collections. While this study is a only a first attempt at harnessing this potential, a presentation of the tensions, struggles, and successes provides illumination to some of the larger issues facing special collections today.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  6. Gömpel, R.; Altenhöner, R.; Kunz, M.; Oehlschläger, S.; Werner, C.: Weltkongress Bibliothek und Information, 70. IFLA-Generalkonferenz in Buenos Aires : Aus den Veranstaltungen der Division IV Bibliographic Control, der Core Activities ICABS und UNIMARC sowie der Information Technology Section (2004) 0.01 
    0.009454259 = product of:
  0.023635646 = sum of:
    0.0033367698 = weight(_text_:a in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033367698 = score(doc=2874,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.062410496 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
    0.020298876 = sum of:
      0.007734335 = weight(_text_:information in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007734335 = score(doc=2874,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.09501803 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
      0.012564542 = weight(_text_:22 in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.012564542 = score(doc=2874,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    "Libraries: Tools for Education and Development" war das Motto der 70. IFLA-Generalkonferenz, dem Weltkongress Bibliothek und Information, der vom 22.-27. August 2004 in Buenos Aires, Argentinien, und damit erstmals in Lateinamerika stattfand. Rund 3.000 Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmer, davon ein Drittel aus spanischsprachigen Ländern, allein 600 aus Argentinien, besuchten die von der IFLA und dem nationalen Organisationskomitee gut organisierte Tagung mit mehr als 200 Sitzungen und Veranstaltungen. Aus Deutschland waren laut Teilnehmerverzeichnis leider nur 45 Kolleginnen und Kollegen angereist, womit ihre Zahl wieder auf das Niveau von Boston gesunken ist. Erfreulicherweise gab es nunmehr bereits im dritten Jahr eine deutschsprachige Ausgabe des IFLA-Express. Auch in diesem Jahr soll hier über die Veranstaltungen der Division IV Bibliographic Control berichtet werden. Die Arbeit der Division mit ihren Sektionen Bibliography, Cataloguing, Classification and Indexing sowie der neuen Sektion Knowledge Management bildet einen der Schwerpunkte der IFLA-Arbeit, die dabei erzielten konkreten Ergebnisse und Empfehlungen haben maßgeblichen Einfluss auf die tägliche Arbeit der Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. Erstmals wird auch ausführlich über die Arbeit der Core Activities ICABS und UNIMARC und der Information Technology Section berichtet.
    Content
    Cataloguing Section (Sektion Katalogisierung) Der Schwerpunkt der Arbeit dieser Sektion liegt auf der Erarbeitung bzw. internationalen Harmonisierung von Strukturen, Regeln und Arbeitsverfahren mit dem Ziel, die internationale Kooperation im Katalogisierungsbereich zu verbessern. In Anbetracht des laufenden Evaluierungsprozesses wurde der Strategieplan der Sektion zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt nur dort aktualisiert, wo es unbedingt erforderlich war. Neue Ziele wurden nicht aufgenommen. Oberste Priorität bei den strategischen Zielen behielt die Entwicklung internationaler Katalogisierungsstandards für die bibliographische Beschreibung und den Zugriff. In ihrer zentralen Bedeutung bestätigt wurden auch die "Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records" (FRBR). Darüber hinaus gehört auch in Zukunft die Weiterentwicklung und Revision der ISBDs zu den zentralen Anliegen der Arbeit der Sektion Katalogisierung. Ein weiteres vorrangiges Ziel bleibt die Erarbeitung von Standards, Regeln und Informationslisten, um den Zugang zu bibliographischen Daten in allen Sprachen zu ermöglichen. Hierzu zählen u. a.: - die vollständige Veröffentlichung der Anonymous Classics: Der Teil für europäische Literatur ist inzwischen veröffentlicht'. Für die Erarbeitung weiterer Teile (Lateinamerika, Afrika und Asien) soll das Verfahren gestrafft und ein Zeitplan erstellt werden. - die Beobachtung der Aktivitäten zu Unicode und die Information der Sektionsmitglieder darüber zur Förderung des mehrsprachigen Zugangs zu bibliographischer Information - die Entwicklung eines web-basierten multilingualen Wörterbuchs für Katalogisierungsbegriffe - die Entwicklung und der Test von (Daten-)Modellen für eine virtuelle internationale Normdatei - die Überarbeitung der "IFLA Names of persons". Das Open Programme der Sektion stand in diesem Jahr unter dem Motto "Developments in Cataloguing Guidelines" und wurde von Barbara Tillett, Lynne Howarth und Carol van Nuys bestritten. Lynne Howarth ging in ihrem Vortrag "Enabling metadata: creating a core record for resource discovery" auf die Reaktionen im weltweiten Stellungnahmeverfahren auf die Veröffentlichung des Papiers "Guidance an the Structure, Content and Application of Metadata Records for digital resources and collections" der Working Group an the Use of Metadata Schemes ein. Carol van Nuys stellte das norwegische "Paradigma Project and its quest for metadata solutions and services" vor.
    Aus den Arbeitsgruppen der Cataloguing Sektion: Schwerpunkt der Arbeiten der ISBD Review Group bleibt die Fortsetzung des generellen Revisionsprojekts. 2004 konnte die revidierte ISBD(G) veröffentlicht werden Für die Revision der ISBD(A) wurde eine Study Group aus Experten für das Alte Buch gebildet. Das weltweite Stellungnahmeverfahren ist für Frühjahr 2005 geplant. Bezüglich der Revision der ISBD(ER) konnten im weltweiten Stellungnahmeverfahren aufgekommene Fragen während der Sitzungen in Buenos Aires abschließend geklärt werden. Die Veröffentlichung der neuen ISBD(ER) ist für Ende 2004 / Anfang 2005 geplant. Die Revision der ISBD(CM) ist im Rahmen einer gemeinsamen Arbeitsgruppe der ISBD Review Group und der Sektion Geographie und Karten weiter vorangekommen. Für die Revision der ISBD(NBM) soll eine eigene Study Group gebildet werden. Die FRBR Review Group konnte erste Fortschritte bei der Erreichung der im vergangenen Jahr gesetzten Ziele Erarbeitung einer Richtlinie zur Anwendung der FRBR bei der Katalogisierung, Erweiterung der FRBR-Web-Seite im IFLAnet, um bei anderen communities (Archive, Museen etc.) für das Modell zu werben, sowie Überarbeitung des FRBR-Modells vermeIden. Von den in Berlin gebildeten fünf FRBR-Arbeitsgruppen (Expression entity Working Group, Working Group an continuing resources, Working Group an teaching and training, Working Group an subject relationships and classification, Working Group an FRBR/CRM dialogue) sind einige bereits aktiv gewesen, vor allem die letztgenannte Working Group an FRBR/CRM dialogue. Die "Working Group an subject relationships and classification" soll demnächst in Zusammenarbeit mit der Classification and Indexing Section etabliert werden. Ziel hierbei ist es, die FRBR auch auf den Bereich der Inhaltserschließung auszuweiten. Die "Working Group an continuing resources" hat in Buenos Aires beschlossen, ihre Arbeit nicht fortzuführen, da die FRBR in ihrer derzeitigen Fassung "seriality" nicht ausreichend berücksichtigen. Es ist geplant, eine neue Arbeitsgruppe unter Einbeziehung ausgewiesener Experten für fortlaufende Werke zu bilden, die sich mit diesem Problem beschäftigen soll. Für das IFLA Multilingual Dictionary of Cataloguing Terms and Concepts - MulDiCat' konnten die Richtlinien für die Eingabe in die Datenbank fertig gestellt und erforderliche Änderungen in der Datenbank implementiert werden. Die Datenbank dieses IFLA-Projekts enthält mittlerweile alle englischsprachigen Definitionen des AACR2-Glossars, die deutschen Übersetzungen der AACR2-Glossar-Definitionen sowie alle ISBD-Definitionen. Im nächsten Schritt sollen Einträge für die FRBR-Terminologie ergänzt werden. Ebenso sollen Ergänzungen zu den englischen Einträgen vorgenommen werden (aus AACR, ISBD, FRBR und weiteren IFLA-Publikationen). Die Guidelines for OPAC Displays (Richtlinien zur Präsentation von Suchergebnissen im OPAC) stehen nach der Durchführung des weltweiten Stellungnahmeverfahrens zur Veröffentlichung im IFLAnet bereit. Die Working Group an OPAC Displays hat damit ihre Arbeit beendet.
    Classification and Indexing Section (Sektion Klassifikation und Indexierung) Die Working Group an Guidelines for Multilingual Thesauri hat ihre Arbeit abgeschlossen, die Richtlinien werden Ende 2004 im IFLAnet zur Verfügung stehen. Die 2003 ins Leben gerufene Arbeitsgruppe zu Mindeststandards der Inhaltserschließung in Nationalbibliographien hat sich in Absprache mit den Mitgliedern des Standing Committee auf den Namen "Guidelines for minimal requirements for subject access by national bibliographic agencies" verständigt. Als Grundlage der zukünftigen Arbeit soll der "Survey an Subject Heading Languages Used in National Libraries and Bibliographies" von Magda HeinerFreiling dienen. Davon ausgehend soll eruiert werden, welche Arten von Medienwerken mit welchen Instrumentarien und in welcher Tiefe erschlossen werden. Eine weitere Arbeitsgruppe der Sektion befasst sich mit dem sachlichen Zugriff auf Netzpublikationen (Working Group an Subject Access to Web Resources). Die Veranstaltung "Implementation and adaption of global tools for subject access to local needs" fand regen Zuspruch. Drei Vortragende zeigten auf, wie in ihrem Sprachgebiet die Subject Headings der Library of Congress (LoC) übernommen werden (Development of a Spanish subject heading list und Subject indexing in Sweden) bzw. wie sich die Zusammenarbeit mit der LoC gestalten lässt, um den besonderen terminologischen Bedürfnissen eines Sprach- und Kulturraums außerhalb der USA Rechnung zu tragen (The SACO Program in Latin America). Aus deutscher Sicht verdiente der Vortrag "Subject indexing between international standards and local context - the Italian case" besondere Beachtung. Die Entwicklung eines Regelwerks zur verbalen Sacherschließung und die Erarbeitung einer italienischen Schlagwortnormdatei folgen nämlich erklärtermaßen der deutschen Vorgehensweise mit RSWK und SWD.
    Knowledge Management Section (Sektion Wissensmanagement) Ziel der neuen Sektion ist es, die Entwicklung und Implementierung des Wissensmanagements in Bibliotheken und Informationszentren zu fördern. Die Sektion will dafür eine internationale Plattform für die professionelle Kommunikation bieten und damit das Thema bekannter und allgemein verständlicher machen. Auf diese Weise soll seine Bedeutung auch für Bibliotheken und die mit ihm arbeitenden Einrichtungen herausgestellt werden. IFLA-CDNL Alliance for Bibliographic Standards (ICABS) Ein Jahr nach ihrer Gründung in Berlin hat die IFLA Core Activity "IFLA-CDNL Alliance for Bibliographic Standards (ICABS)" in Buenos Aires zum ersten Mal das Spektrum ihrer Arbeitsfelder einem großen Fachpublikum vorgestellt. Die IFLA Core Activity UNIMARC, einer der Partner der Allianz, hatte am Donnerstagvormittag zu einer Veranstaltung unter dem Titel "The holdings record as a bibliographic control tool" geladen. Am Nachmittag des selben Tages fand unter dem Titel "The new IFLA-CDNL Alliance for Bibliographic Standards - umbrella for multifaceted activities: strategies and practical ways to improve international coordination" die umfassende ICABS-Veranstaltung statt, die von der Generaldirektorin Der Deutschen Bibliothek, Dr. Elisabeth Niggemann, moderiert wurde. Nachdem die Vorsitzende des Advisory Board in ihrem Vortrag auf die Entstehungsgeschichte der Allianz eingegangen war, gab sie einen kurzen Oberblick über die Organisation und die Arbeit von ICABS als Dach der vielfältigen Aktivitäten im Bereich bibliographischer Standards. Vertreter aller in ICABS zusammengeschlossener Bibliotheken stellten im Anschluss daran ihre Arbeitsbereiche und -ergebnisse vor.
    Type
    a
  7. Cunningham, A.: Dynamic descriptions : recent developments in standards for archival description and metadata (2000) 0.01 
    0.008412599 = product of:
  0.021031497 = sum of:
    0.01155891 = weight(_text_:a in 2473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01155891 = score(doc=2473,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 2473, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2473)
    0.009472587 = product of:
      0.018945174 = sum of:
        0.018945174 = weight(_text_:information in 2473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018945174 = score(doc=2473,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2473, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2473)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    Canadian journal of information and library science. 25(2000) no.4, S.3-17
    Type
    a
  8. Hsieh-Yee, I.: Cataloging and metadata education : asserting a central role in information organization (2002) 0.01 
    0.0074442835 = product of:
  0.018610708 = sum of:
    0.009138121 = weight(_text_:a in 5457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009138121 = score(doc=5457,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 5457, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5457)
    0.009472587 = product of:
      0.018945174 = sum of:
        0.018945174 = weight(_text_:information in 5457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018945174 = score(doc=5457,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5457, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5457)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This paper describes challenges in organizing digital resources, the role of cataloging in such an effort, forces that threaten the future of cataloging, and responses from the field. It identifies ten issues for consideration when one designs a future cataloging education program. A model program providing four levels of expertise is presented to illustrate that future cataloging education will have a broader scope, incorporating metadata and various aspects of information organization. The program shows that LIS programs can meet different market demands to cover cataloging and metadata topics adequately to help students and ensure the central role of the profession in future information organization.
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes: Education for cataloging and the organization of information: pitfalls and the pendulum; Part I
    Type
    a
  9. Agnew, G.: Developing a metadata strategy (2003) 0.01 
    0.0068851607 = product of:
  0.017212901 = sum of:
    0.010897844 = weight(_text_:a in 5504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010897844 = score(doc=5504,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 5504, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5504)
    0.006315058 = product of:
      0.012630116 = sum of:
        0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 5504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012630116 = score(doc=5504,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5504, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5504)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This paper covers the steps in building a metadata repository, including modeling the information needs of your community, selecting and adapting a metadata standard, documenting your metadata, populating the database, and sharing your metadata with other repositories and metadata initiatives. In addition, advances and options that can be applied to metadata for multimedia, particularly video, are presented.
    Type
    a
  10. Baca, M.: Practical issues in applying metadata schemas and controlled vocabularies to cultural heritage information (2003) 0.01 
    0.005822873 = product of:
  0.014557183 = sum of:
    0.0067426977 = weight(_text_:a in 5505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067426977 = score(doc=5505,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 5505, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5505)
    0.007814486 = product of:
      0.015628971 = sum of:
        0.015628971 = weight(_text_:information in 5505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015628971 = score(doc=5505,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 5505, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5505)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Gives an overview of descriptive metadata schemas for art and architecture, including Categories for the Description of Works of Art, Object ID, and the VRA Core Categories. It also focuses on the menu of controlled vocabularies and classification systems needed to populate these metadata schemas such as the Art & Architecture Thesaurus, ICONCLASS, and others. Addresses the development of local authority files and thesauri to enhance end-user access, and metadata mapping and crosswalks as a means of providing integrated access to diverse information resources.
    Type
    a
  11. Pitti, D.V.: Encoded Archival Description (EAD) (2009) 0.01 
    0.005278751 = product of:
  0.013196876 = sum of:
    0.0076151006 = weight(_text_:a in 3777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076151006 = score(doc=3777,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 3777, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3777)
    0.0055817757 = product of:
      0.011163551 = sum of:
        0.011163551 = weight(_text_:information in 3777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011163551 = score(doc=3777,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3777, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3777)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Encoded Archival Description (EAD) is an international digital standard based on Extensible Markup Language (XML) for encoding descriptions of archival records. People living their lives as individuals, as members of families, and as members of corporate bodies create and assemble records that serve as instruments for carrying out or documenting the performance of activities. Based on the archival principles of respect des fonds (or provenance) and original order, archivists traditionally have treated all of the records created and assembled by one individual, family, or corporate body as a collection or fonds. Archivists describe records as an essential part of their responsibility for preserving and facilitating access to and use of archives. Archival description provides information essential for establishing the authenticity and completeness of fonds, and serves effective administration, discovery, access, and understanding of records. Traditionally archivists have described each fonds hierarchically in a single apparatus commonly called a finding aid. Until the advent of computing, finding aids were typically in printed form. In the 1990s, archivists created EAD, an encoding standard for archival description. EAD is based technologically on XML and intellectually on General International Standard Archival Description (ISAD(G)), a descriptive framework developed by the International Council of Archives (ICA). As with all standards, EAD will continue to develop in the future. Future changes to EAD will be influenced by ICA descriptive standards that complement ISAD(G) and encoding standards based on them that will complement EAD. This entry is organized into six sections: introduction, archival records, archival description, EAD, history, and future.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
    Type
    a
  12. Intner, S.S.; Lazinger, S.S.; Weihs, J.: Metadata and its impact on libraries (2005) 0.00 
    0.0049259006 = product of:
  0.012314751 = sum of:
    0.00561662 = weight(_text_:a in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00561662 = score(doc=339,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.105052516 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
    0.0066981306 = product of:
      0.013396261 = sum of:
        0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013396261 = score(doc=339,freq=36.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
              6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
                36.0 = termFreq=36.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    What is metadata? - Metadata schemas & their relationships to particular communities - Library and information-related metadata schemas - Creating library metadata for monographic materials - Creating library metadata for continuing materials - Integrating library metadata into local cataloging and bibliographic - databases - Digital collections/digital libraries - Archiving & preserving digital materials - Impact of digital resources on library services - Future possibilities
    Footnote
    Rez. in: JASIST. 58(2007) no.6., S.909-910 (A.D. Petrou): "A division in metadata definitions for physical objects vs. those for digital resources offered in Chapter 1 is punctuated by the use of broader, more inclusive metadata definitions, such as data about data as well as with the inclusion of more specific metadata definitions intended for networked resources. Intertwined with the book's subject matter, which is to "distinguish traditional cataloguing from metadata activity" (5), the authors' chosen metadata definition is also detailed on page 5 as follows: Thus while granting the validity of the inclusive definition, we concentrate primarily on metadata as it is most commonly thought of both inside and outside of the library community, as "structured information used to find, access, use and manage information resources primarily in a digital environment." (International Encyclopedia of Information and Library Science, 2003) Metadata principles discussed by the authors include modularity, extensibility, refinement and multilingualism. The latter set is followed by seven misconceptions about metadata. Two types of metadata discussed are automatically generated indexes and manually created records. In terms of categories of metadata, the authors present three sets of them as follows: descriptive, structural, and administrative metadata. Chapter 2 focuses on metadata for communities of practice, and is a prelude to content in Chapter 3 where metadata applications, use, and development are presented from the perspective of libraries. Chapter 2 discusses the emergence and impact of metadata on organization and access of online resources from the perspective of communities for which such standards exist and for the need for mapping one standard to another. Discussion focuses on metalanguages, such as Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) and eXtensible Markup Language (XML), "capable of embedding descriptive elements within the document markup itself' (25). This discussion falls under syntactic interoperability. For semantic interoperability, HTML and other mark-up languages, such as Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) and Computer Interchange of Museum Information (CIMI), are covered. For structural interoperability, Dublin Core's 15 metadata elements are grouped into three areas: content (title, subject, description, type, source, relation, and coverage), intellectual property (creator, publisher, contributor and rights), and instantiation (date, format, identifier, and language) for discussion.
    Other selected specialized metadata element sets or schemas, such as Government Information Locator Service (GILS), are presented. Attention is brought to the different sets of elements and the need for linking up these elements across metadata schemes from a semantic point of view. It is no surprise, then, that after the presentation of additional specialized sets of metadata from the educational community and the arts sector, attention is turned to the discussion of Crosswalks between metadata element sets or the mapping of one metadata standard to another. Finally, the five appendices detailing elements found in Dublin Core, GILS, ARIADNE versions 3 and 3. 1, and Categories for the Description of Works of Art are an excellent addition to this chapter's focus on metadata and communities of practice. Chapters 3-6 provide an up-to-date account of the use of metadata standards in Libraries from the point of view of a community of practice. Some of the content standards included in these four chapters are AACR2, Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), and Library of Congress Subject Classification. In addition, uses of MARC along with planned implementations of the archival community's encoding scheme, EAD, are covered in detail. In a way, content in these chapters can be considered as a refresher course on the history, current state, importance, and usefulness of the above-mentioned standards in Libraries. Application of the standards is offered for various types of materials, such as monographic materials, continuing resources, and integrating library metadata into local catalogs and databases. A review of current digital library projects takes place in Chapter 7. While details about these projects tend to become out of date fast, the sections on issues and problems encountered in digital projects and successes and failures deserve any reader's close inspection. A suggested model is important enough to merit a specific mention below, in a short list format, as it encapsulates lessons learned from issues, problems, successes, and failures in digital projects. Before detailing the model, however, the various projects included in Chapter 7 should be mentioned. The projects are: Colorado Digitization Project, Cooperative Online Resource Catalog (an Office of Research project by OCLC, Inc.), California Digital Library, JSTOR, LC's National Digital Library Program and VARIATIONS.
    Chapter 8 discusses issues of archiving and preserving digital materials. The chapter reiterates, "What is the point of all of this if the resources identified and catalogued are not preserved?" (Gorman, 2003, p. 16). Discussion about preservation and related issues is organized in five sections that successively ask why, what, who, how, and how much of the plethora of digital materials should be archived and preserved. These are not easy questions because of media instability and technological obsolescence. Stakeholders in communities with diverse interests compete in terms of which community or representative of a community has an authoritative say in what and how much get archived and preserved. In discussing the above-mentioned questions, the authors once again provide valuable information and lessons from a number of initiatives in Europe, Australia, and from other global initiatives. The Draft Charter on the Preservation of the Digital Heritage and the Guidelines for the Preservation of Digital Heritage, both published by UNESCO, are discussed and some of the preservation principles from the Guidelines are listed. The existing diversity in administrative arrangements for these new projects and resources notwithstanding, the impact on content produced for online reserves through work done in digital projects and from the use of metadata and the impact on levels of reference services and the ensuing need for different models to train users and staff is undeniable. In terms of education and training, formal coursework, continuing education, and informal and on-the-job training are just some of the available options. The intensity in resources required for cataloguing digital materials, the questions over the quality of digital resources, and the threat of the new digital environment to the survival of the traditional library are all issues quoted by critics and others, however, who are concerned about a balance for planning and resources allocated for traditional or print-based resources and newer digital resources. A number of questions are asked as part of the book's conclusions in Chapter 10. Of these questions, one that touches on all of the rest and upon much of the book's content is the question: What does the future hold for metadata in libraries? Metadata standards are alive and well in many communities of practice, as Chapters 2-6 have demonstrated. The usefulness of metadata continues to be high and innovation in various elements should keep information professionals engaged for decades to come. There is no doubt that metadata have had a tremendous impact in how we organize information for access and in terms of who, how, when, and where contact is made with library services and collections online. Planning and commitment to a diversity of metadata to serve the plethora of needs in communities of practice are paramount for the continued success of many digital projects and for online preservation of our digital heritage."
    LCSH
    Information organization
    Cataloging of electronic information resources
    Information storage and retrieval systems
    Electronic information resources / Management
    Series
    Library and information science text series
    Subject
    Information organization
    Cataloging of electronic information resources
    Information storage and retrieval systems
    Electronic information resources / Management
  13. Electronic cataloging : AACR2 and metadata for serials and monographs (2003) 0.00 
    0.0043424987 = product of:
  0.010856247 = sum of:
    0.0053305705 = weight(_text_:a in 3082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053305705 = score(doc=3082,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.09970228 = fieldWeight in 3082, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3082)
    0.005525676 = product of:
      0.011051352 = sum of:
        0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 3082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011051352 = score(doc=3082,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3082, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3082)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Electronic Cataloging is the undertaking of three pioneers in library science: Sheila S. Intner, Sally C. Tseng, and Mary L. Larsgaard, who co-edited Maps and Related Cartographic Materials: Cataloging Classification, and Bibliographic Control (Haworth, 2000). With illustrations, references, additional reading lists, and case studies, this research tool offers you tips and strategies to make metadata work for you and your library. No one currently involved in information cataloging should be without this book! For a complete list of contents, visit our Web site at www.HaworthPress.com. Electronic Cataloging: AACR2 and Metadata for Serials and Monographs is a collection of papers about recent developments in metadata and its practical applications in cataloging. Acknowledged experts examine a wide variety of techniques for managing serials and monographs using standards and schemas like MARC, AACR2, ISSN, ISBD, and Dublin Core. From the broadest introduction of metadata usage to the revisions of AACR2 through 2000, this book offers vital analysis and strategy for achieving Universal Bibliographic Control. Electronic Cataloging is divided into three parts. The first is an introduction to metadata, what it is, and its relationship to the library in general. The second portion focuses in more an how metadata can be utilized by a library system and the possibilities in the near future. The third portion is very specific, dealing with individual standards of metadata and elements, such as AACR2 and MARC, as well as current policies and prospects for the future. Information covered in Electronic Cataloging includes: an overview of metadata and seriality and why it is important to the cataloging community Universal Bibliographic Control: what has succeeded so far in cataloging and how metadata will evolve the step-by-step process for creating an effective metadata repository for the community the inherent problems that accompany cataloging nonprint research materials, such as electronic serials and the Web metadata schemas and the use of controlled vocabularies and classification systems standards of metadata, including MARC, Dublin Core, RDF, and AACR2, with emphasis an the revisions and efforts made with AACR2 through 2000 an overview of the ISSN (International Serials Standard Number) and its relationships to current codes and metadata standards, including AACR2 and much more!
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: Editors' Introduction (Sheila S. Intner, Sally C. Tseng, and Mary Lynette Larsgaard) PART 1. Cataloging in an Electronic Age (Michael Gorman) Why Metadata? Why Me? Why Now? (Brian E. C. Schottlaender) PART 2. Developing a Metadata Strategy (Grace Agnew) Practical Issues in Applying Metadata Schemas and Controlled Vocabularies to Cultural Heritage Information (Murtha Baca) Digital Resources and Metadata Application in the Shanghai Library (Yuanliang Ma and Wei Liu) Struggling Toward Retrieval: Alternatives to Standard Operating Procedures Can Help Librarians and the Public (Sheila S. Intner) PART 3. AACR2 and Other Metadata Standards: The Way Forward (Ann Huthwaite) AACR2 and Metadata: Library Opportunities in the Global Semantic Web (Barbara B. Tillett) Seriality: What Have We Accomplished? What's Next? (Jean Hirons) MARC and Mark-Up (Erik Jul) ISSN: Dumb Number, Smart Solution (Regina Romano Reynolds) Index Reference Notes Included
    Imprint
    Binghampton, NY : Haworth Information Press
  14. Siripan, P.: Metadata and trends of cataloguing in Thai libraries (2000) 0.00 
    0.0019071229 = product of:
  0.009535614 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 6338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=6338,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 6338, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6338)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Type
    a
  15. Weiss, B.: Metadaten für Online-Monographien und Online-Zeitschriften (2001) 0.00 
    0.0019071229 = product of:
  0.009535614 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 6491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=6491,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 6491, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6491)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Type
    a
  16. Condron, L.; Tittemore, C.P.: Metadata standards for library catalogers (2001) 0.00 
    0.0019071229 = product of:
  0.009535614 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 4102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=4102,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4102, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4102)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Type
    a
  17. Dunsire, G.: Integrating Dublin Core / RDF records with MARC21 via the OCLC Connexion service at the Centre for Digital Library Research (2003) 0.00 
    0.0016346768 = product of:
  0.008173384 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 1497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=1497,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1497, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1497)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses the use of OCLC's Connexion service (formerly CORC) by the Centre for Digital Library Research at the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland. The Centre has completed, and is currently engaged in, a number of research projects involving the application of Dublin Core and MARC21 in creating metadata for digital resources; these include projects an the Glasgow Digital Library, East Dunbartonshire local history, and a pilot Scottish Cultural Portal.The Connexion service provides a MARC21-DC converter, and the Centre has been investigating its incorporation in workflows for creating and maintaining digital libraries. This has included the use of databases to store metadata, with subsequent output to Dublin Core and conversion to MARC21.
    Type
    a
  18. Humphrey, J.: Manuscripts and metadata : Descriptive metadata in three manuscript catalogs: DigCIM, MALVINE, & Digital Scriptorium (2007) 0.00 
    0.0016346768 = product of:
  0.008173384 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=783,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 783, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=783)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The complexity of cataloging manuscripts, particularly medieval manuscripts, has meant that these materials have remained largely inaccessible to the public. The quantity and quality of the descriptive data, the time and money it takes to catalog manuscripts, and the fragility of the materials themselves explain the dearth of searchable data on these valuable resources. Even when manuscripts have been cataloged, they have often been physically available only to a few elite scholars who are able to gain access to them. Certain institutions have embarked on projects to reverse this situation. This paper deals with three of these projects: the British Library's Digital Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts (DigCIM), a European consortium's database entitled Manuscripts And Letters Via Integrated Networks in Europe (MALVINE), and Columbia University's Digital Scriptorium (DS). The author explores the history of each project, compares the metadata utilized by each one through the creation of a crosswalk, and analyzes the usefulness of these catalogs to the user.
    Type
    a
  19. McCallum, S.H.: Library of Congress metadata landscape (2003) 0.00 
    0.0015230201 = product of:
  0.0076151006 = sum of:
    0.0076151006 = weight(_text_:a in 1760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076151006 = score(doc=1760,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 1760, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1760)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The Library of Congress (LC) has many of the same challenges as other libraries, especially large ones. LC has many different types of resources - books, journals, maps, music, manuscripts, audio, moving image, still image, artifacts, electronic - with large collections of each. Different levels of access are needed for this material: for some, collection level bibliographic description is adequate; for many, item level access is adequate; but for others, such as sound recordings, analytic, or sub unit access is highly desirable.The sizes of the LC collections are a major challenge - over 125 million non-electronic and over 3 million electronic items (and growing rapidly). And finally, electronic resources are presenting us with new issues - from metadata to preservation to storage to linking techniques. LC has tried to approach these challenges from a service perspective. Access must be successful for the end user, which mandates as much coherence and consistency in the metadata as possible and access systems that are easy to use. This paper focuses an the Library of Congress' perspective an metadata in the following three areas: (1) descriptive metadata in our current operations, (2) pathways that are developing that will support possible evolution in the future, and (3) broader metadata needs with digital material. The discussion is from a metadata element set and format point of view, not a cataloging data and cataloging rules view. Most acronyms used in this paper are expanded in an Appendix.
    Type
    a
  20. Huthwaite, A.: AACR2 and other metadata standards : the way forward (2003) 0.00 
    0.0014156717 = product of:
  0.007078358 = sum of:
    0.007078358 = weight(_text_:a in 5508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007078358 = score(doc=5508,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 5508, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5508)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Changes in the environment in which the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition (AACR2), currently operates are examined, including the growth in electronic publishing and use of the Internet, and the development and increasing use of a range of other metadata standards, such as the Dublin Core. AACR2 and other metadata standards, particularly the Dublin Core, are compared. It is argued that AACR2 should continue to be used for describing selected Web-based resources. Criteria for deciding whether to use AACR2 or another metadata standard are defined, drawing on the experiences of two Brisbane universities in developing mechanisms for providing access to electronic resources. Five options are evaluated: catalog only (direct entry); catalog only (indirect entry); subject gateway only; catalog and subject gateway combined; and shared databases, such as CORC. The option chosen by the two universities is identified and explained. Revisions to the rules in AACR2 for cataloging electronic resources resulting from decisions made through 2000 are described. Possible future revisions are also explored.
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

  • e 23
  • d 3

Types

  • a 24
  • m 2
  • b 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications