Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.023001488 = product of:
  0.1840119 = sum of:
    0.1840119 = weight(_text_:cooperative in 121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1840119 = score(doc=121,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23071818 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.79756135 = fieldWeight in 121, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=121)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This article examines the motivations for the collaboration between the British Library and Library of Congress to develop a joint (Anglo-American) authority file. It describes the obstacles that had to be overcome for the British Library to become a Name Authority Cooperative (NACO) "copy holder", or node. It considers the contribution the British Library made to NACO, the benefits it has derived from participation in Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC), and concludes by looking ahead to the next 25 years.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC): 25 Years Strong and Growing!'.

0.013477524 = product of:
  0.053910095 = sum of:
    0.040784575 = weight(_text_:work in 191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040784575 = score(doc=191,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28674924 = fieldWeight in 191, 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=191)
    0.01312552 = product of:
      0.02625104 = sum of:
        0.02625104 = weight(_text_:22 in 191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02625104 = score(doc=191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 191, 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=191)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

International efforts to provide authority control include the work of IFLA, the AUTHOR Project funded by the European Commission, and related work conducted under the auspices of the ICA/CDS. IFLA developed the guidelines Form and Structure of Corporate Headings, documented the formulation of names along the lines of national origin in its publication Names of Persons, and published Guidelines for Authority and Reference Entries. Attention has shifted from a single authority record for each entity that would be shared internationally through the exchange of records to linking parallel authority records for the same entity. The access control of the future will account for difference in cataloging rules, transliteration standards, and cultural differences within the same language as well as for the need for different languages and scripts and will enable users to display the script and form of a heading that they expect. Project AUTHOR is a shared set of resource national authority files that used selections from the authority files of France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, and Belgium. The prototype tested an adaptation of Z39.50 server software for authority records and displays for user interface. An international standard for authority control records has been developed for corporate bodies, persons, and families. Through joint meetings efforts have been synchronized to develop authority control at the international level.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.013279915 = product of:
  0.10623932 = sum of:
    0.10623932 = weight(_text_:cooperative in 707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10623932 = score(doc=707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23071818 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.46047226 = fieldWeight in 707, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=707)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper discusses the basics of creating name authority records for Arabic personal names in accordance with Resource Description and Access instructions and Program for Cooperative Cataloging guidelines. A background into the use of romanization for non-Latin scripts in bibliographic and authority records is provided to establish the context. Issues with romanization that are particular to Arabic are addressed. Separate sections on modern and classical names provide an overview of the major challenges, and strategies to enhance discovery are outlined. The paper concludes with an examination of the possible benefits of identity management and other changes in the authority control landscape for names in non-Latin script.

0.008741372 = product of:
  0.06993098 = sum of:
    0.06993098 = weight(_text_:work in 557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06993098 = score(doc=557,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.49167252 = fieldWeight in 557, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=557)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

A sample was taken of the name and title provisional, or minimal level, authority records created by Blackwell North America, Inc., during its authority control processing in preparation for the implementation of NOTIS at the State Univerity of New York at Buffalo Libraries. Analysis of the sample showed that approximately 10 % of theses provisional records were created unnecessarily, while approximately 7 % had Library of Congress Name Authority File recordsestablished since the vendor's work was completed. The remaining 83 %, which will require original authority work in order to be upgraded to 'full' status, are categorized in such a manner as to determine the best approach to achieving the libraries' goal of absolute authority control.

0.007492605 = product of:
  0.05994084 = sum of:
    0.05994084 = weight(_text_:work in 5341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05994084 = score(doc=5341,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.4214336 = fieldWeight in 5341, 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=5341)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

In 1996, a study was undertaken at the University of Arkansas Libraries to evaluate the practice of front-end authority work for monographs copy cataloging. A sample of 283 name headings originating from Library of Congress, OCLC "Enhance" member, and general member copy was examined, and analysis revealed that 47.3 percent of headings correctly matched authority records already present in the library's local file. Another 41.3 percent exactly matched records in the OCLC authority file. These findings prompted the library to cease checking name headings at the point of cataloging. However, the level of inaccuracies present, combined with the value of authority records for cross-reference and note information, ensured that the Database Maintenance Unit would continue to review local headings reports and perform needed authority work.

0.007209763 = product of:
  0.057678103 = sum of:
    0.057678103 = weight(_text_:work in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057678103 = score(doc=5669,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.40552467 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Today's electronic catalogue makes retrieval of specific records very simple and quick in most (not all) cases, but searches aimed at the reliable retrieval of all material answering a well-defined need (author, work, theme, form, etc.) are still long and tiring, and sometimes impossible, in crowded bibliographic databases. In spite of its great relevance, authority control has been and still is the "poor relative" of cataloguing, the often neglected or overlooked "other half" if we compare it to the creation of bibliographic records. The FRBR study and the new authority control standards (GARR and UNIMARC Authorities) are important steps towards future perspectives. Even today, cataloguing codes do not make clear the difference between the access points for bibliographic records and the relationships (work-to-work, author-to-work, etc.) that are independent from spoecific publications. With the development of richer authority records and relationships, the bibliographic record might be relieved of information related to entities different from publications and of all the functions more suitably worked out upstream or downstream in access systems or by links to the images and/or the texts of the publications themselves. A "light" bibliographic record would no longer be the paramount component of library information systems; it would keep its central role rather as nimble, swift turntable between access and content organization systems and systems for management and display of digital resources themselves.

0.00576781 = product of:
  0.04614248 = sum of:
    0.04614248 = weight(_text_:work in 293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04614248 = score(doc=293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.32441974 = fieldWeight in 293, 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=293)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Since the 1970s the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) has worked toward establishing an international system of authority control. It concentrated on two main areas: publication of international authority lists, and formulation of international rules for the structure of authority forms. The work of IFLA in these areas is described in this paper.

0.005098072 = product of:
  0.040784575 = sum of:
    0.040784575 = weight(_text_:work in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040784575 = score(doc=5678,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28674924 = fieldWeight in 5678, 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=5678)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Explicit authority control of works is essentially non-existent. Our catalogs are built on a principle of controlling headings, and primarily headings for names of authors. Our syndetic structure creates a spider's web of networked relationships among forms of headings, but it ends there, despite the potential richness of depth among bibliographic entities. Effective authority control of works could yield richness in the catalog that would enhance retrieval capabilities. Works are considered to constitute the intellectual content of informative artifacts that may be collected and ordered for retrieval. In a 1992 study the author examined a random sample of works drawn from the catalog of the Georgetown University Library. For each progenitor work, an instantiation network (also referred to as a bibliographic family) was constituted. A detailed analysis of the linkages that would be required for authority control of these networks is reviewed here. A new study is also presented, in which Library of Congress authority records for the works in this sample are sought and analyzed. Results demonstrate a near total lack of control, with only 5.6% of works for which authority records were found. From a sample of 410 works, of which nearly half have instantiation networks, only 23 works could be said to have implicit authority control. However, many instantiation networks are made up of successive derivations that can be implicitly linked through collocation. The difficult work of explicitly linking instantiations comes with title changes, translations, and containing relations. The empirical evidence in the present study suggests that explicit control of expressions will provide the best control over instantiation networks because it is instantiations such as translations, abridgments, and adaptations that require explicit linking.

0.005046834 = product of:
  0.04037467 = sum of:
    0.04037467 = weight(_text_:work in 5661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037467 = score(doc=5661,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28386727 = fieldWeight in 5661, 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=5661)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Discusses the work of the IFLA Working Group of Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records. Describes the activities of the group to build liaison relationships with other sectors of the information community that create and maintain data which is similar to library authority files. Provides a description of the entity-relationship model being developed by the Working Group to extend the FRBR model to cover authority data. (Note: Readers should be aware that the Working Group's entity-relationship model has changed considerably since this paper was written in December 2002.)

0.005046834 = product of:
  0.04037467 = sum of:
    0.04037467 = weight(_text_:work in 1939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037467 = score(doc=1939,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28386727 = fieldWeight in 1939, 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=1939)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This article describes the project to build the initial International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI) database by deploying the techniques used to develop the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF). It focuses particularly on the work of the OCLC team in transforming the VIAF "resource file" model of matched data into a robust, operational, and authoritative file of uniquely assigned ISNIs as a base for an ongoing ISNI assignment system, and on the quality assurance validation of the database provided by the British Library and the Bibliothèque nationale de France. The need for future interaction between ongoing ISNI assignment and name authority control in libraries is also explored.

0.0036048815 = product of:
  0.028839052 = sum of:
    0.028839052 = weight(_text_:work in 2506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028839052 = score(doc=2506,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.20276234 = fieldWeight in 2506, 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=2506)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Content

This paper looks at approaches to name authority control in repository contexts and describes the work of the Names project, which has been funded to investigate issues surrounding the identification of individuals and institutions within repositories of research outputs in the United Kingdom. The problem of uniquely identifying authors has been with us ever since books have been catalogued. National libraries have been creating name authority files for authors of books for many years, starting with card catalogues and now maintaining electronic files in MARC format. However, authority files for the creators of journal articles do not tend to exist in library systems. The increasing use of subject-based and institutional repositories to hold working papers, reports, research data, and pre-refereed and post-referred versions of articles has led to a corresponding rise in the number of authors identified in such systems. Without having a means of uniquely and unambiguously identifying the creators of materials in repositories, it becomes difficult to be sure whether all the materials related to a particular author will be correctly associated with that individual. Names of authors may be entered in more than one way, or more than one author may have exactly the same name. This article looks at recent attempts to address this problem in the repository environment and goes on to explain the approach that is planned to be taken in the Names project.

0.0018024407 = product of:
  0.014419526 = sum of:
    0.014419526 = weight(_text_:work in 3691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014419526 = score(doc=3691,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.10138117 = fieldWeight in 3691, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3691)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Content

"Nach Augsburg, Bielefeld und Leipzig hat der Standardisierungsausschuss beim 94. Deutschen Bibliothekartag in Düsseldorf zum vierten Mal in Folge eine Veranstaltung zum Themenfeld Standardisierung durchgeführt, die vom Vorsitzenden, Berndt Dugall, moderiert wurde. Auch in diesem Jahr konnten dafür wieder zwei Referenten aus dem Ausland gewonnen werden, die einen Einblick in internationale Aktivitäten gewährten. Den Auftakt bildete Jeffrey Garrett von der Northwestern University Library in Evanston, Illinois mit seinem Vortrag »Entscheidend auch hier der Einstieg - Wandel und Kontinuität im Ethos des Katalogisierens in den USA«. Zunächst erläuterte der Referent die Losung aus dem Titel, die aus dem Werk »Bücherlabyrinthe: Suchen und Finden im alexandrinischen Zeitalter« von Nikolaus Wegmann stammt. Dieses Buch erinnere daran, dass der Katalog in der Nachfolge von Schrettinger und Dewey den Einstieg des Benutzers in die ansonsten gewaltige Unordnung der Bibliothek ermögliche, und dadurch die »Sichtbarkeit« der modernen Forschungsbibliothek erst her- bzw. sicherstellt. Garrett stellte die Frage nach dem Sinn von Katalogen im elektronischen Zeitalter, einer Zeit, in der bibliografische Angaben beziehungsweise Schlagworte durch Volltextrecherchen, die sich gleichzeitig auf mehrere tausend Publikationen erstrecken können, umgangen werden können, und in welcher der Inhalt eines Textes in ständigem Wandel begriffen ist. In seinem Vortrag hat der Referent einige Entwicklungen auf dem Gebiet des Katalogisierens in den USA teils theoretisch, teils konkret nachgezeichnet, in der Absicht, sowohl den Wandel als auch die Kontinuität im Bereich der Erschließung aufzuzeigen. Die bisweilen geäußerte Feststellung, dass Kataloge auf den Müllhaufen der Geschichte gehörten, bezeichnete Garrett als maßlos übertrieben und nur angesichts des »Google-Schocks« in den USA zu erklären. Der Katalog diene nach wie vor als Beschreibung des Volltexts. Der Moderator kommentierte dazu, dass der Gedanke des »Vanishing catalogue« vergleichbar sei mit dem Traum vom papierlosen Büro. Patrick Le Boeuf, der Vorsitzende der IFLA FRBR Review Group, referierte in seinem Vortrag »Zwischen Traum und Wirklichkeit« über die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). Anhand von leicht verständlichen Beispielen erläuterte er, was die FRBR mit den vier Entitäten der Gruppe 1: Werk (work), Fassung (expression), Erscheinungsform (manifestation) und Exemplar (item) sind. Ausführlich ging er auch darauf ein, was die FRBR nicht sind und was sie nicht leisten können. Es handelt sich dabei weder um eine Norm, noch um ein Datenmodell oder gar ein Format. Dennoch haben die FRBR Einfluss auf die Standardisierungsaktivitäten auf internationaler wie nationaler Ebene. In einigen Systemen, Prototypen und Projekten lässt sich das Potenzial des FRBRModells für bibliografische Informationen bereits aufzeigen. Ganz konkret werden die FRBR in die Überlegungen der IFLA Meetings of Experts an an International Cataloguing Code einbezogen und haben Einzug in die »Frankfurt principles« gefunden, deren Ziel eine Aktualisierung der »Paris principles« ist, und die bei nachfolgenden Regionaltreffen bis 2007 von Kolleginnen und Kollegen aus allen Teilen der WeIt weiter diskutiert und modifiziert werden. Durch die gegenwärtige Revision der Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR) werden die FRBR auch Einzug in das internationale Regelwerk halten.

0.00164069 = product of:
  0.01312552 = sum of:
    0.01312552 = product of:
      0.02625104 = sum of:
        0.02625104 = weight(_text_:22 in 3041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02625104 = score(doc=3041,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3041, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3041)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

22. 8.2009 13:11:01

0.001160143 = product of:
  0.009281144 = sum of:
    0.009281144 = product of:
      0.018562287 = sum of:
        0.018562287 = weight(_text_:22 in 632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018562287 = score(doc=632,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.13679022 = fieldWeight in 632, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=632)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Content

MARC21 als Austauschformat Die Expertengruppe Datenformate hat in ihrer 5. Sitzung am 22. November 2005 die Frage der Hierarchienabbildung bei der Übernahme von MARC 21 weiter diskutiert und einer Lösung zugeführt. Für einen geringen Prozentsatz der Daten werden trotz Vorarbeiten der Expertengruppe Probleme bei der Überführung von MARC-21-Daten in MAB2-Strukturen gesehen. Es wurde darauf hingewiesen, dass es im Zusammenhang mit dem Umstieg auf MARC 21 ebenso wie bei der kooperativen Katalogisierung notwendig ist, gemeinsame Regeln festzulegen und Absprachen zwischen den Verbünden zu treffen. Eine unterschiedliche Handhabung des Formats sollte sich von vornherein verbieten. Projekt Kooperative Neukatalogisierung Die Projektgruppe hat zweimal getagt, zuletzt am 3. November 2005. Es liegen erste Ergebnisse vor, und spätestens Anfang Januar 2006 soll das Verfahren erprobt werden. Alle Verbünde signalisieren ihr Interesse an dem geplanten Verfahren, da die Eigenkatalogisierungsrate nach wie vor zu hoch ist. Für die Akzeptanz des Dienstes, der auch zum Synchronisieren der vorhandenen Aufnahmen und zum Austausch von Sacherschließungsdaten genutzt werden soll, ist die Aktualität des geplanten Neukatalogisierungspools essentiell. Ein weiteres Ziel ist auch die Optimierung der Arbeitsabläufe zwischen Verbundzentrale und Bibliotheken. Catalogue Enrichment Zur Anreicherung der Katalogdaten gibt es verschiedene Aktivitäten innerhalb der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme, die koordiniert werden müssen, damit eine Mehrfachdigitalisierung von Inhaltsverzeichnissen, Abstracts und anderen Objekten vermieden werden kann. Die Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme beschließt, eine kleine Arbeitsgruppe einzusetzen, die bis spätestens Anfang Februar 2006 einen Vorschlag mit unterschiedlichen Szenarien für unterschiedliche Umgebungen vorlegen soll. Aufgabe der AG Datenanreicherung ist die Konzeption eines schnellen Dienstes für die Digitalisierung von Abstracts und Inhaltsverzeichnissen sofern sie lizenzrechtlich frei verfügbar sind, die allen Verbünden zur Verfügung gestellt werden sollen. Dazu gehören eine Übersicht über die vorhandenen Daten und eine ausgearbeitete Verfahrensvorschrift für das künftige Vorgehen.
DDC/Melvil-Nutzungs- und Lizenzsituation Die Deutsche Bibliothek hat den Dienst Melvil vorgestellt, der auf der im Rahmen des Projektes DDC Deutsch erstellten deutschen Übersetzung der 22. Ausgabe der DDC basiert, und die Such- und Sprachgewohnheiten deutschsprachiger Benutzerinnen und Benutzer berücksichtigt. Mit Melvil wurde ein Online-Dienst entwickelt, der Bibliotheken und Informationseinrichtungen außer einem an WebDewey orientierten Klassifikationstool MelvilClass auch ein Retrievaltool MelvilSearch für die verbale Suche nach DDC-erschlossenen Dokumenten und das Browsing in der DDC-Hierarchie zur Verfügung stellt. Über die Schnittstelle MelvilSoap können Bibliotheken und Verbundzentralen, die den Dienst Melvil lizenziert haben, auch DDC-Daten zur weiteren Nutzung herunterladen. Gegenwärtig vergibt Die Deutsche Bibliothek Testlizenzen, ab 2006 kann der Dienst nach einem gestaffelten Modell kostenpflichtig genutzt werden Ergebnisse der Adhoc-Arbeitsgruppe ISBD(CR) Der Standardisierungsausschuss hatte in seiner 9. Sitzung am 15. Dezember 2004 die Anpassung der Splitregeln bei fortlaufenden Sammelwerken an die ISBD(CR) mit dem Ziel der Übernahme beschlossen. Im Januar 2005 richtete die Arbeitsstelle für Standardisierung eine Ad-hoc-AG ISBD(CR) ein, in der Vertreter der ZDB, der Expertengruppe Formalerschließung und der AGDBT (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Datenbankteilnehmer der ZDB) unter der Federführung der Arbeitsstelle für Standardisierung zusammenarbeiteten. Auftragsgemäß konnte dem Standardisierungsausschuss am 2. August 2005 ein entscheidungsreifer Entwurf zur Anwendung der ISBD(CR)-Splitregeln für fortlaufende Sammelwerke vorgelegt werden. Die Unterlage, die dem Standardisierungsausschuss zu seiner 11. Sitzung am 1. Dezember 2005 zugeleitet wurde, wurde den Mitgliedern der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme im Vorfeld der Sitzung zur Kenntnis gegeben. Die zeitnahe Anwendung der ISBD(CR)-Splitregeln würde nicht nur in einem kleinen abgeschlossenen Bereich eine Angleichung an internationale Gepflogenheiten bedeuten, sondern sie hätte auch einige positive Auswirkungen auf die von Zeitschriftentiteln abhängigen ergänzenden Dienstleistungen. So würde z.B. die Verlinkung mit SFX-Diensten erheblich erleichtert."