Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0076106074 = product of:
  0.022831822 = sum of:
    0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 4294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006246961 = score(doc=4294,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 4294, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4294)
    0.01658486 = weight(_text_:und in 4294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01658486 = score(doc=4294,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 4294, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4294)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

In Grenoble wurde um 1971 das Format MONOCLE als französische Adaption des USMARCII aufgestellt. Dieses wurde vom SiBiL-Verbund übernommen. MONOCLE wurde danach auch die Basis für das weiterentwickelte INTERMARC, das seinerseits ein Vorläufer von UNIMARC wurde. Die Ähnlichkeit mit USMARC ist recht stark, es gibt aber eine Reihe von abweichenden Feldern, vor allem sind die Indikatoren sehr unterschiedlich definiert. Immerhin hat die französische Orientierung auf USMARC dann um 1988 dazu geführt, daß die französischen Universitäten und die Bibliothèque Nationale sich zu einem Anschluß an OCLC entschließen konnten

0.0020609628 = product of:
  0.012365777 = sum of:
    0.012365777 = weight(_text_:in in 921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012365777 = score(doc=921,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 921, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=921)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

UNIMARC is widely used in French libraries for internal cataloguing, but in versions that differ significantly from the official IFLA form, while the BNF uses its own version for exporting bibliographic information. This situation has in part been created by software suppliers who produce modified versions for small libraries but without precisely detailing the variations. Problems will inevitably arise when such libraries change software or join cataloguing networks

0.0019955188 = product of:
  0.011973113 = sum of:
    0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 2535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011973113 = score(doc=2535,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 2535, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2535)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The work of Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of Anglo-American Cataloguing rules gave rise to a confernce in Toronto, Canada, in Oct 1997. some contributors elaborated on prepared texts about precise points concerning the evolution of rules in general, and those of the AACR in particular. The evolution of the notion of the catalogue and that of the practice of cataloguing were the focus of contributions and debates at an electronic forum set up specially for the occasion. Synthesizes the topics discussed including: hypertext navigation within the body of catalogues or documents, the creation of metadata included in the electronic documents themselves, the evolution of the notion of authority, and the advent of a set of universal characters permitting liberation from the problems of transliteration

0.0018033426 = product of:
  0.010820055 = sum of:
    0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010820055 = score(doc=917,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 917, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=917)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Electronic documents are creating new services and generating new demands, with consequent impacts on the means of transmitting knowledge, international standards and democratisation of access. Universal bibliographic control depends on common rules for bibliographic description and format to ensure compatibility and exchange. In addition to ISBN and UNIMARC for cataloguing, Z39.50 allows searching of heterogeneous databases and SGML makes cataloguing in publication a reality. Such developments must be based on knowledge of what users want and their real search and consultation practices, not what the system devisers have the technology to create

Content

Presentation given at a French Librarians Association study day on 'The future of cataloguing / Catalogues of the future', held in June 1996 at the BNF

0.001682769 = product of:
  0.010096614 = sum of:
    0.010096614 = weight(_text_:in in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010096614 = score(doc=4689,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Text of a document produced by the French Librarians Association, Federation of Library Software Users and the Association of Directors of Departmental Lending Libraries, setting out standards for local data included in bibliographic notices in UNIMARC format. These are specifically intended for loan copies sent from central to branch libraries, for integration into the local catalogue. The subfields (MARC field 995) are: origin of document; bar code; classification code and loan details; details of contents, support etc; and notes on physical features

0.001682769 = product of:
  0.010096614 = sum of:
    0.010096614 = weight(_text_:in in 4620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010096614 = score(doc=4620,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 4620, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4620)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

To facilitate exchange, holdings data needs to be integrated into the main bibliographic record sequence in local collections. Recent recommendations for French libraries propose using designated fields within UNIMARC, to meet the needs respectively of departmental lending libraries and joint catalogues. Further provisions for holdings data is being considered at international level

Footnote

Übers. des Titels: Recommendations for exchange of single copy data in UNIMARC format: a reference document

0.0015457221 = product of:
  0.009274333 = sum of:
    0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 92) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009274333 = score(doc=92,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 92, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=92)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Over the last decade, the gap between North and South in relation to formats has increasingly limited development of international programmes such as UBC and UAP. At present the need to review formats in the light of network developments such as the Internet is urgent. Presentations covered the Web, limitations of traditional formats eg. MARC, Internet formats eg. Z39.50 and SGML, and multimedia formats, with examples of prototypes for converting traditional systems to international standards. The Internet has defined a new field of action for librarians. It is essential that developing countries share the experience of industrialised countries, with support from governments and collaboration from international organisations, in ensuring harmonious progress to universal compatibility

0.0014724231 = product of:
  0.008834538 = sum of:
    0.008834538 = weight(_text_:in in 920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008834538 = score(doc=920,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 920, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=920)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Since publication in 1977 of the first version of UNIMARC, conceived as an international exchange format for countries using different forms of MARC, it has been widely adopted as a national format. In France the National Library (BNF) uses UNIMARC for its bibliographic records, though with some differences from the official IFLA version. This. together with promotion by central government, has led to adoption of UNIMARC by most libraries. A permanent committee manages the development of UNIMARC, introducing regular changes, updates and guidelines. The BNF, however, has recently introduced further modifications and is working on a UNIMARC version of the INTERMARC authority list, without consulting French libraries. The French Librarians Association is accordingsly promoting BNF collaboration with UNIMARC users on future developments

0.0010411602 = product of:
  0.006246961 = sum of:
    0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006246961 = score(doc=892,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 892, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=892)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Secondary information, e.g. MARC based bibliographic records, comprises structured data for identifying, tagging, retrieving and management of primary documents. SGML, the standard format for coding content and structure of primary documents, was introduced in 1986 as a publishing tool but is now being applied to bibliographic records. SGML now comprises standard definitions (DTD) for books, serials, articles and mathematical formulae. A simplified version (HTML) is used for Web pages. Pilot projects to develop SGML as a standard for bibliographic exchange include the Dublin Core, listing 13 descriptive elements for Internet documents; the French GRISELI programme using SGML for exchanging grey literature and US experiments on reformatting USMARC for use with SGML-based records

0.0010411602 = product of:
  0.006246961 = sum of:
    0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006246961 = score(doc=902,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 902, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=902)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Authority records complement bibliographic records, providing cataloguers with essential subject heading and related information. At present there is no international format standard comparable to ISBD for bibliographic records, though IFLA and the International Archives Council have set up working groups. The essential data form comprises of subject heading, structure, homonyms, with supplementary supporting information. In France MARC formats are most widely used, e.g. UNIMARC(A) for authority records and (B) for bibliographic. The National Library (BNF) is introducing new cataloguing software based on the reorganisation of its authotity files, using integrated INTERMARC. As an experiments, readers will for the first time have access to authority files, thus enriching, completing and clarifying the bibliographic records

0.0010411602 = product of:
  0.006246961 = sum of:
    0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006246961 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 915, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=915)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The French National Library (NBF) has developed 2 new versions of INTERMARC, (A) and (B), to standardise cataloguing procedures and enrich bibliographic description and access. The bibliographic description format (B) accords with existing ISBD and can be used for all types of documents, allowing inclusion of specific characteristics and addition of new links. The format for editing records (A) eliminates redundancies and enriches links between fields. Both will be used as reference formats in the new Information System