Search (89 results, page 1 of 5)

0.041927725 = product of:
  0.08385545 = sum of:
    0.08385545 = sum of:
      0.013257373 = weight(_text_:a in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013257373 = score(doc=2845,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
      0.07059808 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07059808 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)

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

0.034582928 = product of:
  0.069165856 = sum of:
    0.069165856 = sum of:
      0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 2275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006765375 = score(doc=2275,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2275, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2275)
      0.06240048 = weight(_text_:22 in 2275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06240048 = score(doc=2275,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2275, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2275)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Bericht über den Workshop, der am 22. u. 23.6.98 in der SUB Göttingen stattfand

Type

a

0.03037249 = product of:
  0.06074498 = sum of:
    0.06074498 = sum of:
      0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 6095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0108246 = score(doc=6095,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 6095, 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=6095)
      0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 6095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04992038 = score(doc=6095,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6095, 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=6095)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Libraries, their collections, and bibliographic control are essential components of the provision of access to recorded knowledge. Cataloging is a primary method of bibliographic control. Full or traditional cataloging is very expensive, but relying on keyword searching is inadequate. Alternatives for a solution to cataloging needs for electronic resources including the use of metadata and the Dublin Core are examined. Many questions exist regarding the long-term future of today's electronic documents. Recommendations are made for preserving recorded knowledge and information in the electronic resources for future generations

Source

Journal of Internet cataloging. 2(1999) no.1, S.5-22

Type

a

0.028787265 = product of:
  0.05757453 = sum of:
    0.05757453 = sum of:
      0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007654148 = score(doc=903,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 903, 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=903)
      0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04992038 = score(doc=903,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 903, 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=903)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Recently the view has developed that electronic resources require the same level of cataloguing as the physical resources found in libraries, with the effect that a number of guidelines for cataloguing Internet resources have appeared. Describes one such standard for resource description, the Dublin Core metadata set, the ongoing refinement of the metadata elements and the application of the Dublin Core metadata set

Source

Cataloguing Australia. 23(1997) nos.1/2, S.17-22

Type

a

0.028787265 = product of:
  0.05757453 = sum of:
    0.05757453 = sum of:
      0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007654148 = score(doc=126,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
      0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04992038 = score(doc=126,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.025188856 = product of:
  0.05037771 = sum of:
    0.05037771 = sum of:
      0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00669738 = score(doc=2606,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 2606, 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=2606)
      0.043680333 = weight(_text_:22 in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043680333 = score(doc=2606,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2606, 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=2606)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Catalogers have become fluent in information technology such as web design skills, HyperText Markup Language (HTML), Cascading Stylesheets (CSS), eXensible Markup Language (XML), and programming languages. The knowledge gained from learning information technology can be used to experiment with methods of transforming one metadata schema into another using various software solutions. This paper will discuss the use of eXtensible Stylesheet Language Transformations (XSLT) for repurposing, editing, and reformatting metadata. Catalogers have the requisite skills for working with any metadata schema, and if they are excluded from metadata work, libraries are wasting a valuable human resource.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Type

a

0.022779368 = product of:
  0.045558736 = sum of:
    0.045558736 = sum of:
      0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 2595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008118451 = score(doc=2595,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2595, 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=2595)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 2595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=2595,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2595, 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=2595)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Academic libraries have moved toward providing social networking features, such as tagging, in their library catalogs. To explore whether user tags can enhance access to individual literary works, the author obtained a sample of individual works of English and American literature from the twentieth and twenty-first centuries from a large academic library catalog and searched them in LibraryThing. The author compared match rates, the availability of subject headings and tags across various literary forms, and the terminology used in tags versus controlled-vocabulary headings on a subset of records. In addition, she evaluated the usefulness of available LibraryThing tags for the library catalog records that lacked subject headings. Options for utilizing the subject terms available in sources outside the local catalog also are discussed.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Type

a

0.020749755 = product of:
  0.04149951 = sum of:
    0.04149951 = sum of:
      0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 4458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0040592253 = score(doc=4458,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 4458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=4458,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

12. 3.2000 19:25:22

Type

a

0.020383961 = product of:
  0.040767923 = sum of:
    0.040767923 = sum of:
      0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009567685 = score(doc=154,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)

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

0.01938208 = product of:
  0.03876416 = sum of:
    0.03876416 = sum of:
      0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0075639198 = score(doc=138,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.007897219 = product of:
  0.015794437 = sum of:
    0.015794437 = sum of:
      0.0033143433 = weight(_text_:a in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0033143433 = score(doc=2874,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
      0.012480095 = weight(_text_:22 in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.012480095 = score(doc=2874,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.003515392 = product of:
  0.007030784 = sum of:
    0.007030784 = product of:
      0.014061568 = sum of:
        0.014061568 = weight(_text_:a in 674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014061568 = score(doc=674,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.26478532 = fieldWeight in 674, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=674)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.00334869 = product of:
  0.00669738 = sum of:
    0.00669738 = product of:
      0.01339476 = sum of:
        0.01339476 = weight(_text_:a in 2982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01339476 = score(doc=2982,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 2982, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2982)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Addresses the question of why a technical services department would hire a metadata specialist and whether a metadata specialist is really a cataloguer in disguise. Evidence suggests that cataoguing departments are recruiting and training staff for positions requiring broader computer experience and an awareness of larger metadata issues. Also explores whether students are attracted to these positions and whether library schools are preparing technical services staff for these challenges

Footnote

Paper presented at the USAIN/IAALD Joint Conference held in tuscon, Arizona, 3-5 April 1997, the theme of which was 'The information frontier: linking people and resources in a changing world'

Type

a

0.0029000505 = product of:
  0.005800101 = sum of:
    0.005800101 = product of:
      0.011600202 = sum of:
        0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011600202 = score(doc=702,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 702, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=702)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Information professions identified the need for a set of standard metadata almost as soon as the WWW became a reality. Several initiatives have already identified the types of bibliographic information that would be necessary to describe and locate an electronic publication. The descriptors identified in the OCLC/NCSA Dublin Core are combined with those assembled by the Coalition of Networked Information and the Internet Engineering Task force to produce a list of electronic citation elements. Advocates embedding these citation elements within electrinic documents through the use of HTML<META>tags and other markup techniques. There is also a call to cataloguing librarians to contribute their expertise in information resources management to document being prepared for the WWW in order to influence the quality of electronic publication from the insides

Type

a

0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 1438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=1438,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 1438, 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=1438)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports the release of MARCit, a software package that enables the cataloguing of Internet resources into MARC format bibliographic records

Type

a

0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 2473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=2473,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 5750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=5750,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 5750, 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=5750)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 1561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=1561,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1561, 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=1561)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

The PICS, an initiative of W3C, is a technology that supports the association of descriptive labels with Web resources. By providing a single common transport syntax for metadata, PICS will support the growth of metadata systems (including library cataloguing) that are interoperable and widely supported in Web information systems. Within the PICS framework, a great diversity of resource description models can be implemented, from simple rating schemes to complex data content standards

Type

a

0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 2561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=2561,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 2561, 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=2561)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Introduces a special section on organizing Internet resources. Approaches based on fulltext indexing of the content of Internet sites are not an adequate solution for providing access to Internet resources. Adding metadata can provide an overview of a subject area and improve the user's ability to discriminate among similar sources. Introduces the articles in this section that explore issues associated with the provision of metadata

Type

a

0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 4171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=4171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 4171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a