Search (314 results, page 2 of 16)

  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Pitti, D.V.: Encoded Archival Description (EAD) (2009) 0.05 
    0.05398133 = product of:
  0.10796266 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 3777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=3777,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = 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)
    0.09582469 = weight(_text_:standards in 3777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09582469 = score(doc=3777,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.42645568 = fieldWeight in 3777, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3777)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  2. Loesch, M.F.; Deyrup, M.M.: Cataloging the curriculum library : new procedures for non-traditional formats (2002) 0.05 
    0.051125795 = product of:
  0.10225159 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 5472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=5472,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5472, 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=5472)
    0.088519044 = weight(_text_:standards in 5472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088519044 = score(doc=5472,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.39394283 = fieldWeight in 5472, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5472)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This report examines some of the technical problems of integrating a curriculum resource center into an academic library setting. Procedures for conducting an inventory of existing materials, processing multi-media and other non-print formats, and displaying and retrieving materials within a Web OPAC are discussed. An analysis of how cataloging staff can use the new ACRL standards to reshape how students and faculty access information resources is provided.
  3. Historical aspects of cataloging and classification (2003) 0.05 
    0.051098473 = product of:
  0.0681313 = sum of:
    0.009710376 = weight(_text_:information in 4058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009710376 = score(doc=4058,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 4058, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4058)
    0.044259522 = weight(_text_:standards in 4058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044259522 = score(doc=4058,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19697142 = fieldWeight in 4058, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4058)
    0.014161401 = product of:
      0.028322803 = sum of:
        0.028322803 = weight(_text_:organization in 4058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028322803 = score(doc=4058,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.15756798 = fieldWeight in 4058, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4058)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: Blake, V.L.P.: Forging the Anglo-American Cataloging Alliance: descriptive cataloging, 1830-1908; M. Carpenter, M.: The original 73 rules of the British Museum: a preliminary analysis; De Rijk Spanhoff, E.: Principle issues: catalog paradigms, old and new; Mutula, S.M., Tsvakai, M.: Historical perspectives of cataloguing and classification; Barber, E.E., Tripaldi, N.M., Pisano, S.L.: Facts, approaches, and reflections an classification in the history of Argentine librarianship; MirandaArguedas, A.: Standardization of technical processes in Central American Libraries; Steinhagen, EN.: Historical perspective of a union catalog in Chile: authorities and periodicals; Liu, S.Q., Shen, Z.G.: The development of cataloging in China; Popst, H.: The development of descriptive cataloging in Germany; Croissant, C.R.: RAK or AACR2? : the current discussion in Germany an cataloging rules; Soltani, P.: Historical aspects of cataloging and classification in Iran; Takawashi, T.: Cataloging in Japan: relationship between Japanese and Western cataloging rules; Martinez-Arellano, F.F.: Cataloging and classification history in Mexico; Carter, R.C.: Three book collectors of imperial Spain; Lincoln, T.: Cultural reassertion of Alaska native languages and cultures: libraries' responses; Descriptive standards and the archival profession; Shuler, J.A.: Foundations of government information and bibliographic control in the United States: 1789-1900; Zhou, L.: Characteristics of material organization and classification in the Kinsey Institute Library; Goldberg, J.E.: Development of a universal law classification: a retrospective an Library of Congress Class K; Lubas, R.L.: The evolution of bibliographic control of maps; Guthrie II, L.S.: Monastic cataloging and classification and the beginnings of Class B at the Library of Congress; Bradley, C.J.: Classifying and cataloguing music in American Libraries: a historical overview; Haddad, P.: Cataloging and classification of Pacific and Asian language materials at the National Library of Australia; Russell, B.M.: Description and access in rare books cataloging: a historical survey; Waithe, M.E., Vintro, M.E.: Posthumously plagiarizing Oliva Sabuco: an appeal to cataloging librarians; Walravens, H.: Serials cataloguing in Germany: the historical development; Smiraglia, R.P.: The history of The Work in the modern catalog.
    Imprint
    New York : Haworth Information Press
  4. Charbonneau, M.D.: Production benchmarks for catalogers in academic libraries : are we there yet? (2005) 0.05 
    0.050680675 = product of:
  0.10136135 = sum of:
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=128,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 128, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=128)
    0.023907183 = product of:
      0.047814365 = sum of:
        0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047814365 = score(doc=128,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 128, 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=128)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This paper examines existing library and personnel literature to determine whether any strides have been made among academic libraries in determining cataloging productivity benchmarks. The perceived importance of performance evaluations based on quantitative and qualitative standards is explored, as is the intended effect of established cataloging production norms. The pros and cons of cataloging benchmarks are analyzed from four different perspectives: library administration, library human resources, cataloging managers, and cataloging staff. The paper concludes that additional research is needed in order to determine whether established production cataloging benchmarks are feasible and meaningful within academic libraries.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  5. Electronic cataloging : AACR2 and metadata for serials and monographs (2003) 0.05 
    0.04930618 = product of:
  0.09861236 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 3082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=3082,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = 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)
    0.086596385 = weight(_text_:standards in 3082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.086596385 = score(doc=3082,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.3853863 = fieldWeight in 3082, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3082)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  6. Lee-Smeltzer, K.-H. (Janet): Cataloging in three academic libraries: operations, trends, and perspectives (2000) 0.05 
    0.046883676 = product of:
  0.09376735 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 5386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=5386,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5386, 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=5386)
    0.083467945 = sum of:
      0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 5386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042484205 = score(doc=5386,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 5386, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5386)
      0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 5386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04098374 = score(doc=5386,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5386, 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=5386)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    27. 7.2006 18:22:11
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Managing cataloging and the organization of information: philosophies, practices and challenges at the onset of the 21st century. Part II: Specialized and academic libraries in the United States"
  7. Shuler, J.A.: Foundations of government information and bibliographic control in the United States : 1789-1900 (2003) 0.04 
    0.043494053 = product of:
  0.08698811 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 5636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=5636,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5636, 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=5636)
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 5636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=5636,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 5636, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5636)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    A history of classification and bibliographic control of government information is, by necessity, a tangled tale that involves the complex evolution of governments, the regularization of official publishing, along with the growth of professional librarianship. For the purposes of this article, the main argument will draw its narrative largely from the historic evolution of bibliographic control and U.S. government information during the nineteenth century. The standards and practices developed in the United States during this period remain a common framework for the discussion of any government in the world. It is further argued that these bibliographic arrangements remained in play until the 1980s when the advent of distributed computer networks began to undermine the traditions of what had largely been a print culture.
    Imprint
    New York : Haworth Information Press
  8. Ellero, N.P.: Panning for gold : utility of the World Wide Web for metadata and authority control in special collections (2002) 0.04 
    0.043440577 = product of:
  0.08688115 = sum of:
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=161,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 161, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=161)
    0.02049187 = product of:
      0.04098374 = sum of:
        0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04098374 = score(doc=161,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 161, 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=161)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article describes the use of the World Wide Web as a valuable name authority resource and tool for special collections analytic-level cataloging and the specific goal of fully discovering the names of people who lived in the past as well as those from the present. Current tools and initiatives such as the Name Authority Component of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (NACO) and the Library of Congress Name Authority File have a specific mission and are partially helpful. Web resources encompassing special collections are often intricate and require global and enhanced resources to continue what have been the guiding principles, tradition, and value of cataloging: to discover works via many points of entry; to find works by or about the same person, topic, or title; and to continue the great cataloging legacies of standards and cooperation.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  9. Patton, G.: Local creation / global use : bibliographic data in the international arena (2000) 0.04 
    0.043440577 = product of:
  0.08688115 = sum of:
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=183,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 183, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=183)
    0.02049187 = product of:
      0.04098374 = sum of:
        0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04098374 = score(doc=183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 183, 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=183)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    OCLC has grown from the original group of Ohio academic libraries to 27,000 libraries located in North America, Europe, Asia, Latin American, and South Africa. Each of the records in WorldCat (the OCLC Online Union Catalog) is a local creation that is available for use across the globe for different purposes. Common issues that must be faced with the expansion of a bibliographic utility include cataloging standards, subject access in languages appropriate to the user, local needs versus global usefulness, and character sets. Progress has been made with the cooperative creation of an international name authority file and the uniform application of ISBD principles. A method of linking various subject vocabularies and an improved infrastructure of MARC formats and character sets are needed. Librarians need new automated tools to provide preliminary access to date available in electronic form and to assist them in organizing and storing that data.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  10. Lundy, M.W.: Evidence of application of the DCRB core standard in WorldCat and RLIN (2006) 0.04 
    0.043440577 = product of:
  0.08688115 = sum of:
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 1087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=1087,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 1087, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1087)
    0.02049187 = product of:
      0.04098374 = sum of:
        0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 1087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04098374 = score(doc=1087,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1087, 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=1087)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The Core Standard for Rare Books, known as the DCRB Core standard, was approved by the Program for Cooperative Cataloging for use beginning in January 1999. Comparable to the core standards for other types of materials, the DCRB Core standard provides requirements for an intermediate level of bibliographic description for the cataloging of rare books. While the Core Standard for Books seems to have found a place in general cataloging practice, the DCRB Core standard appears to have met with resistance among rare book cataloging practitioners. This study investigates the extent to which such resistance exists by examining all of the DCRB Core records in the OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) Online Union Catalog (WorldCat) and the Research Libraries Croup Union Catalog (RLIN) databases that were created during the standard's first five years. The study analyzes the content of the records for adherence to the standard and investigates the ways in which the flexibility of the standard and cataloger's judgment augmented many records with more than the mandatory elements of description and access.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  11. Shuler, J.A.: Foundations of government information and bibliographic control in the United States : 1789-1900 (2003) 0.04 
    0.042114194 = product of:
  0.08422839 = sum of:
    0.017839102 = weight(_text_:information in 5637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017839102 = score(doc=5637,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 5637, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5637)
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 5637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=5637,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 5637, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5637)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    A history of classification and bibliographic control of government information is, by necessity, a tangled tale that involves the complex evolution of governments, the regularization of official publishing, along with the growth of professional librarianship. For the purposes of this article, the main argument will draw its narrative largely from the historic evolution of bibliographic control and U.S. government information during the nineteenth century. The standards and practices developed in the United States during this period remain a common framework for the discussion of any government in the world. It is further argued that these bibliographic arrangements remained in play until the 1980s when the advent of distributed computer networks began to undermine the traditions of what had largely been a print culture.
  12. Zwink, E.: Eindrücke von der Veranstaltung (2002) 0.04 
    0.038727082 = product of:
  0.15490833 = sum of:
    0.15490833 = weight(_text_:standards in 1062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15490833 = score(doc=1062,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.68939996 = fieldWeight in 1062, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1062)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Footnote
    Teil eines Heftschwerpunktes: 'Amerikanische Standards für das deutsche Bibliothekswesen?: RAK - AACR2'
  13. Condron, L.; Tittemore, C.P.: Metadata standards for library catalogers (2001) 0.04 
    0.038727082 = product of:
  0.15490833 = sum of:
    0.15490833 = weight(_text_:standards in 4102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15490833 = score(doc=4102,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.68939996 = fieldWeight in 4102, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4102)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  14. Haddad, P.: Cataloging and classification of Pacific and Asian language materials at the National Library of Australia (2003) 0.04 
    0.038344346 = product of:
  0.07668869 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 5644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=5644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5644, 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=5644)
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 5644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=5644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 5644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5644)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    From its inception early in the twentieth century, the National Library of Australia has included in its collections materials in the languages of the Pacific region. Following the Second World War, the Library began to collect materials in the languages of East and Southeast Asia. This collection policy presented the Library with a number of choices in the cataloging, classification, and organizing of its collections. Early difficulties in controlling materials, many in non-roman scripts, showed the need to be consistent in bibliographic standards and practices. A concern for the needs of specialist readers led the National Library to provide innovative solutions for accessing script materials in the automated environment.
    Imprint
    New York : Haworth Information Press
  15. Henze, G.: First IFLA Meeting of Experts an an International Cataloguing Code (2003) 0.04 
    0.03620048 = product of:
  0.07240096 = sum of:
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=1960,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 1960, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1960)
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=1960,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1960, 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=1960)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Vom 28. bis 30. Juli 2003 trafen sich in der Deutschen Bibliothek Frankfurt am Main auf Einladung der Sektion Katalogisierung der IFLA Regelwerksexperten aus Europa, Amerika und Australien zum »First IFLA Meeting of Experts an an International Cataloguing Code«. Die europäischen Regelwerksgremien entsandten verantwortliche Regelwerksexperten. Dieser Auftaktveranstaltung, die die Erschließung in Europa zum Schwerpunkt hatte, sollen weitere Veranstaltungen im Vorfeld der IFLA-Konferenzen 2004 in Buenos Aires und 2006 in Seoul folgen. 52 Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmer aus insgesamt 29 Ländern und drei Kontinenten nutzten die Gelegenheit zu einem intensiven Informations- und Meinungsaustausch auf der Frankfurter Konferenz, nachdem bereits im Vorfeld Hintergrundpapiere auf der Konferenz-Website" bereitgestellt worden waren. Diskussionsbeiträge wurden ebenfalls bereits vor dem Treffen über eine E-MailListe ausgetauscht, die nicht nur den Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmern, sondern auch weiteren Interessierten offen stand und besonders in den Wochen und Tagen vor der Konferenz rege genutzt wurde. Arbeitssprache der Konferenz war englisch. Das Ziel der Konferenz, die Möglichkeiten eines weltweiten Datenaustausches über gemeinsame Standards zu den Inhalten von bibliografischen Datensätzen und Normdatensätzen zu verbessern, stieß auf allgemeines Interesse. Für eine vergleichende Untersuchung zu grundlegenden Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschieden in den derzeit in Europa verwendeten Regelwerken erstellten die Regelwerksgremien unter Verwendung eines einheitlichen Fragenkataloges »Steckbriefe«, um Möglichkeiten einer Harmonisierung auszuloten und vielleicht sogar in naher Zukunft ein internationales Regelwerk zu entwickeln. Angesichts der Vielzahl der in Europa verwendeten Regelwerke konnten diese nicht alle im Plenum vorgestellt werden. Stattdessen gab es eine kurze Vorstellung der Regelwerksgremien in den angloamerikanischen Ländern sowie Frankreich, Deutschland und Osterreich, Spanien, Russland, Italien und Kroatien.
    Date
    16.11.2003 19:22:45
  16. Lundy, M.W.: Use and perception of the DCRB Core standard (2003) 0.04 
    0.03620048 = product of:
  0.07240096 = sum of:
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=153,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 153, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=153)
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=153,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 153, 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=153)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In January 1999, the Program for Cooperative Cataloging approved the core bibliographic standard for rare books, called the DCRB Core standard. Like the other core standards, the DCRB Core provides the framework within which catalogers can create bibliographic records that are less than full, but are as reliable as full-level records in description and authorized headings. In the three years since its approval, there is little evidence that the standard has been widely used. This study reports the results of a survey sent to forty-three participants who indicated in a preliminary query that they do use the DCRB Core or that they have made the decision not to use it. In the thirty-seven surveys that were returned, only about 16% of the respondents said they have used the standard to create bibliographic records for their rare books. The libraries that do not use the core standard find it inferior or lacking in a number of ways. Several of those libraries, however, are planning to use the standard in the future or are seriously planning to investigate using it. Such intent may indicate that the time is approaching when more libraries will find reasons to implement the standard. One impetus may come from the findings of a recent survey of the special collections departments of member libraries of the Association of Research Libraries that emphasize the size of the backlogs in those departments. If faster accessibility to specific portions of the backlogs would benefit users more than having fulllevel cataloging, application of the DCRB Core standard could facilitate reducing those backlogs.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  17. Tillett, B.B.: Authority control at the international level (2000) 0.04 
    0.03620048 = product of:
  0.07240096 = sum of:
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=191,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 191, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=191)
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  18. Parent, I.: Serials standards in convergence : ISBD(S) developments (2000) 0.03 
    0.033194643 = product of:
  0.13277857 = sum of:
    0.13277857 = weight(_text_:standards in 5411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13277857 = score(doc=5411,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.59091425 = fieldWeight in 5411, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5411)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  19. Kushwoh, S.S.; Gautam, J.N.; Singh, R.: Migration from CDS / ISIS to KOHA : a case study of data conversion from CCF to MARC 21 (2009) 0.03 
    0.033194643 = product of:
  0.13277857 = sum of:
    0.13277857 = weight(_text_:standards in 2279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13277857 = score(doc=2279,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.59091425 = fieldWeight in 2279, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2279)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Standards are important for quality and interoperability in any system. Bibliographic record creation standards such as MARC 21 (Machine Readable Catalogue), CCF (Common Communication Format), UNIMARC (Universal MARC) and their local variations, are in practice all across the library community. ILMS (Integrated Library Management Systems) are using these standards for the design of databases and the creation of bibliographic records. Their use is important for uniformity of the system and bibliographic data, but there are problems when a library wants to switch over from one system to another using different standards. This paper discusses migration from one record standard to another, mapping of data and related issues. Data exported from CDS/ISIS CCF based records to KOHA MARC 21 based records are discussed as a case study. This methodology, with few modifications, can be applied for migration of data in other bibliographicformats too. Freeware tools can be utilized for migration.
  20. Helmkamp, K.; Oehlschläger, S.: Standardisierung : Ein Meilenstein auf dem Weg zur Internationalisierung; Im Jahr 2007 erfolgt der Umstieg auf MARC 21 (2006) 0.03 
    0.033072993 = product of:
  0.06614599 = sum of:
    0.0042914203 = weight(_text_:information in 65) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0042914203 = score(doc=65,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.048488684 = fieldWeight in 65, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=65)
    0.061854567 = weight(_text_:standards in 65) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061854567 = score(doc=65,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27527595 = fieldWeight in 65, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=65)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Content
    "Mit der steigenden Zahl von digitalen und digitalisierten Dokumenten, die im World Wide Web zur Verfügung stehen, verliert der aktuelle Speicherort einer Publikation seine Bedeutung. Entscheidend für die Forschung sind vielmehr Auffindbarkeit und schnelle Nutzungsmöglichkeit von Informationen. Global in elektronischen Umgebungen zu arbeiten, Daten, Informationen, Texte zu tauschen und zu mischen, ist zur täglichen Routine für Wissenschaftler und Bibliothekare geworden. Das Interesse von Wissenschaftlern ist nicht auf ihre jeweilige eigene nationale und kulturelle Umgebung beschränkt. Sie benötigen Informationen über Dokumente und Daten aus der ganzen Welt. Gleichzeitig wollen sie die eigenen Forschungsergebnisse in der internationalen Forschungsgemeinschaft zur Diskussion stellen. Sprachraumübergreifende Standards für Metadaten und ein reibungsloser Metadatenaustausch sind Voraussetzung für die wissenschaftliche Kommunikation und für den individuellen Erfolg des einzelnen Forschers. Deutschsprachige und ausländische Bibliotheken verwenden derzeit noch unterschiedliche Standards bei der Speicherung und dem Austausch von Katalogdaten. Während in Deutschland und Österreich das Maschinelle Austauschformat für Bibliotheken MAB2 verwendet wird, ist das Format Machine Readable Cataloguing MARC 21 der weltweit am weitesten verbreitete Standard. Der Standardisierungsausschuss hat in seiner 9. Sitzung am 15. Dezember 2004 wegweisende Beschlüsse zur Internationalisierung der deutschen Standards gefasst.' Diese sehen als ersten Meilenstein die flächendeckende Einführung von MARC 21 als Austauschformat vor. Die Verbundsysteme als größte Datenproduzenten haben sich verpflichtet, MARC 21 einheitlich, das heißt ohne verbundspezifische Besonderheiten, einzuführen und anzuwenden. Gleichzeitig werden die bisher unterschiedlichen Verbundrichtlinien vereinheitlicht. Die Einführung von MARC 21 bildet zusammen mit den Bestrebungen zur Verbesserung der Zusammenarbeit der Verbundsysteme einen entscheidenden Schritt, die Voraussetzungen für Fremddatenübernahme und Datentausch für die deutschen Bibliotheken sowohl auf nationaler als auch auf internationaler Ebene erheblich zu verbessern.
    Expertenworkshops Zur Erweiterung und Vertiefung von vorhandenen Kenntnissen über das Zielformat MARC 21 wurden schon in der Anfangsphase der Arbeiten für den Formatumstieg eine Reihe von Expertenworkshops geplant. Der erste Workshop wurde bereits im Juli 2005 in der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek mit Randall Barry von der Library of Congress durchgeführt, der seit vielen Jahren im Network Development and MARC Standards Office mit der Pflege, Weiterentwicklung und Dokumentation des Formats beschäftigt ist. Zu den Teilnehmern gehörten die Spezialisten für Normdaten und Datenformate der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek, die Expertengruppe Datenformate sowie weitere Fachleute und Hersteller von Bibliothekssoftware-Systemen. Ein zweiter Workshop hat Ende September 2006 an der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek stattgefunden. Als Expertin konnte Sally McCallum, die Leiterin der Abteilung Network Development and MARC Standards an der Library of Congress, gewonnen werden. Zu den weiteren Teilnehmern gehörten die Spezialisten der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek und die Expertengruppe Datenformate. Im Rahmen des Workshops wurden unter anderem auch die Ergebnisse der Konkordanz sowie das weitere Vorgehen im Hinblick auf die erkannten Lücken diskutiert. Das Ziel hierbei war, gemeinsame Lösungen zu finden und nötigenfalls Anträge zur Einrichtung neuer Felder in MARC 21 zu formulieren.
    Aufbau und Pflege von Kontakten zu internationalen Gremien und Experten Der Arbeitsschwerpunkt Aufbau und Pflege von Kontakten zu internationalen Gremien und Experten bezieht sich in erster Linie auf die Teilnahme an den Sitzungen des Machine Readable Bibliographic Information Committee (MARBI), zu dessen wichtigsten Aufgaben die Pflege und Weiterentwicklung des MARC-Formats und somit auch die Entscheidung über Änderungsanträge gehören. Kern von MARBI sind drei Ex-Officio-Vertreter der Library of Congress (LC), von Library and Archives Canada (LAC) und der British Library. Dazu kommen neun Mitglieder mit Stimmrecht aus verschiedenen Untergliederungen der ALA und von anderen großen Institutionen, Die Sitzungen von MARBI finden jeweils im Januar und Juni in Verbindung mit den Tagungen der American Library Association (ALA) statt und sind offen für interessierte Gäste und Zuhörer. Im Jahr 2006 nahmen Vertreter der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek und der Expertengruppe Datenformate an Sitzungen in San Antonio sowie New Orleans teil und nutzten dabei auch die Gelegenheit, im Rahmen von Arbeitstreffen mit MARC-21-Experten wichtige Details des geplanten Umstiegs intensiv und eingehend zu erörtern. Die Vorbereitungen für den Formatumstieg liegen im Wesentlichen im Zeitplan. Die Zusammenarbeit mit internationalen Gremien und Experten, insbesondere mit MARBI, wird im Jahr 2007 fortgeführt und intensiviert werden, weitere Workshops befinden sich bereits in der Planung. Im Herbst wird eine Arbeitsgruppe aus Vertretern der Verbünde eingesetzt, die den Umstieg auf der operativen Ebene konkret planen soll. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek als Träger des Projekts ist zuversichtlich, dass der Umstieg auf MARC 21 im Jahre 2007 als gut vorbereiteter, konzertierter und flächendeckender Schritt in allen Verbünden durchgeführt werden kann."

Authors

Languages

  • e 247
  • d 58
  • es 2
  • f 2
  • a 1
  • chi 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 283
  • m 19
  • b 12
  • el 11
  • s 10
  • r 4
  • p 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications