-
Yee, R.; Beaubien, R.: ¬A preliminary crosswalk from METS to IMS content packaging (2004)
0.04
0.04214079 = product of:
0.12642236 = sum of:
0.0075724614 = weight(_text_:in in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0075724614 = score(doc=4752,freq=4.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 4752, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4752)
0.1188499 = sum of:
0.083362706 = weight(_text_:ausbildung in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.083362706 = score(doc=4752,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23429902 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3671665 = idf(docFreq=560, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.35579622 = fieldWeight in 4752, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3671665 = idf(docFreq=560, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4752)
0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035487194 = score(doc=4752,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4752, 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=4752)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- As educational technology becomes pervasive, demand will grow for library content to be incorporated into courseware. Among the barriers impeding interoperability between libraries and educational tools is the difference in specifications commonly used for the exchange of digital objects and metadata. Among libraries, Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) is a new but increasingly popular standard; the IMS content-package (IMS-CP) plays a parallel role in educational technology. This article describes how METS-encoded library content can be converted into digital objects for IMS-compliant systems through an XSLT-based crosswalk. The conceptual models behind METS and IMS-CP are compared, the design and limitations of an XSLT-based translation are described, and the crosswalks are related to other techniques to enhance interoperability.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.69-81
- Theme
- Ausbildung
-
Caplan, P.; Guenther, R.: Metadata for Internet resources : the Dublin Core Metadata Elements Set and its mapping to USMARC (1996)
0.01
0.013532344 = product of:
0.040597033 = sum of:
0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0071393843 = score(doc=2408,freq=2.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 2408, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2408)
0.033457648 = product of:
0.066915296 = sum of:
0.066915296 = weight(_text_:22 in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.066915296 = score(doc=2408,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2408, 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=2408)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- This paper discuesses the goals and outcome of the OCLC/NCSA Metadata Workshop held March 1-3, 1995 in Dublin Ohio. The resulting proposed "Dublin Core" Metadata Elements Set is described briefly. An attempt is made to map the Dublin Core data elements to USMARC; problems and outstanding questions are noted.
- Date
- 13. 1.2007 18:31:22
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.43-58
-
Tennant, R.: ¬A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty-first century (2004)
0.01
0.013532344 = product of:
0.040597033 = sum of:
0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0071393843 = score(doc=2845,freq=2.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
0.033457648 = product of:
0.066915296 = sum of:
0.066915296 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.066915296 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
Becker, H.-J.; Hengel, C.; Neuroth, H.; Weiß, B.; Wessel, C.: ¬Die Virtuelle Fachbibliothek als Schnittstelle für eine fachübergreifende Suche in den einzelnen Virtuellen Fachbibliotheken : Definition eines Metadaten-Kernsets (VLib Application Profile) (2002)
0.01
0.012998352 = product of:
0.038995054 = sum of:
0.009977593 = weight(_text_:in in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009977593 = score(doc=2856,freq=10.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
0.029017461 = weight(_text_:und in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029017461 = score(doc=2856,freq=12.0), product of:
0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.29991096 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Der folgende Beitrag beschäftigt sich nicht mit einer konkreten Virtuellen Fachbibliothek, sondern mit dem übergreifenden Themenkomplex "Metadaten" und der Fragestellung, wie Metadaten für eine fachübergreifende Suche über alle Virtuellen Fachbibliotheken eingesetzt werden können. Im Rahmen des Aufbaus der Virtuellen Fachbibliotheken hat die Projektkoordinierung Unterarbeitsgruppen zur Lösung spezifischer Fragestellungen ins Leben gerufen. Der Arbeitsbereich "Metadaten" ist von dem von der DFG geförderten Projekt META-LIB (Metadaten-Initiative deutscher Bibliotheken) mit den Teilprojekten an Der Deutschen Bibliothek und der SUB Göttingen übernommen worden. META-LIB erhielt die Aufgabe, "Empfehlungen zur Definition eines Metadaten-Core-Sets für die verteilte Suche über die Virtuellen Fachbibliotheken" zu entwickeln. Im folgenden werden die Empfehlungen vorgestellt. Sie basieren auf den Ergebnissen und der Auswertung von Antworteng eines Internet-Fragebogens, in dem die Datenelemente erfragt wurden, die in den einzelnen Virtuellen Fachbibliotheken zur Erschließung verwendet bzw. benötigt werden. Für die Formulierung der Empfehlungen und zur Abstimmung sind zwei MetadatenWorkshops (am 16. Mai 2001 in der SUB Göttingen und am 9./10. August 2001 in der Deutschen Bibliothek Frankfurt am Main) durchgeführt worden, deren Ergebnisse und Diskussionen als Grundlage dienen.
-
El-Sherbini, M.: Metadata and the future of cataloging (2001)
0.01
0.012645634 = product of:
0.0379369 = sum of:
0.014278769 = weight(_text_:in in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014278769 = score(doc=751,freq=8.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
0.02365813 = product of:
0.04731626 = sum of:
0.04731626 = weight(_text_:22 in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04731626 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 751, 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=751)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- This article is a survey of representative metadata efforts comparing them to MARC 21 metadata in order to determine if new electronic formats require the development of a new set of standards. This study surveys the ongoing metadata projects in order to identify what types of metadata exist and how they are used and also compares and analyzes selected metadata elements in an attempt to illustrate how they are related to MARC 21 metadata format elements.
- Date
- 23. 1.2007 11:22:30
- Footnote
- Auch in: Library computing 19(2000) nos.3/4, S.180-191
-
Proffitt, M.: Pulling it all together : use of METS in RLG cultural materials service (2004)
0.01
0.011251582 = product of:
0.033754744 = sum of:
0.010096614 = weight(_text_:in in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010096614 = score(doc=767,freq=4.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 767, 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=767)
0.02365813 = product of:
0.04731626 = sum of:
0.04731626 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04731626 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 767, 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=767)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- RLG has used METS for a particular application, that is as a wrapper for structural metadata. When RLG cultural materials was launched, there was no single way to deal with "complex digital objects". METS provides a standard means of encoding metadata regarding the digital objects represented in RCM, and METS has now been fully integrated into the workflow for this service.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.65-68
-
Carvalho, J.R. de; Cordeiro, M.I.; Lopes, A.; Vieira, M.: Meta-information about MARC : an XML framework for validation, explanation and help systems (2004)
0.01
0.009845134 = product of:
0.029535402 = sum of:
0.008834538 = weight(_text_:in in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008834538 = score(doc=2848,freq=4.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 2848, 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=2848)
0.020700864 = product of:
0.04140173 = sum of:
0.04140173 = weight(_text_:22 in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04140173 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2848, 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=2848)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- This article proposes a schema for meta-information about MARC that can express at a fairly comprehensive level the syntactic and semantic aspects of MARC formats in XML, including not only rules but also all texts and examples that are conveyed by MARC documentation. It can be thought of as an XML version of the MARC or UNIMARC manuals, for both machine and human usage. The article explains how such a schema can be the central piece of a more complete framework, to be used in conjunction with "slim" record formats, providing a rich environment for the automated processing of bibliographic data.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.131-137
-
Keith, C.: Using XSLT to manipulate MARC metadata (2004)
0.01
0.009005977 = product of:
0.027017929 = sum of:
0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009274333 = score(doc=4747,freq=6.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 4747, 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=4747)
0.017743597 = product of:
0.035487194 = sum of:
0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035487194 = score(doc=4747,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4747, 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=4747)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- This paper describes the MARCXML architecture implemented at the Library of Congress. It gives an overview of the component pieces of the architecture, including the MARCXML schema and the MARCXML toolkit, while giving a brief tutorial on their use. Several different applications of the architecture and tools are discussed to illustrate the features of the toolkit being developed thus far. Nearly any metadata format can take advantage of the features of the toolkit, and the process of the toolkit enabling a new format is discussed. Finally, this paper intends to foster new ideas with regards to the transformation of descriptive metadata, especially using XML tools. In this paper the following conventions will be used: MARC21 will refer to MARC 21 records in the ISO 2709 record structure used today; MARCXML will refer to MARC 21 records in an XML structure.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.122-130
-
Kurth, M.; Ruddy, D.; Rupp, N.: Repurposing MARC metadata : using digital project experience to develop a metadata management design (2004)
0.01
0.009005977 = product of:
0.027017929 = sum of:
0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009274333 = score(doc=4748,freq=6.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 4748, 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=4748)
0.017743597 = product of:
0.035487194 = sum of:
0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035487194 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4748, 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=4748)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Metadata and information technology staff in libraries that are building digital collections typically extract and manipulate MARC metadata sets to provide access to digital content via non-MARC schemes. Metadata processing in these libraries involves defining the relationships between metadata schemes, moving metadata between schemes, and coordinating the intellectual activity and physical resources required to create and manipulate metadata. Actively managing the non-MARC metadata resources used to build digital collections is something most of these libraries have only begun to do. This article proposes strategies for managing MARC metadata repurposing efforts as the first step in a coordinated approach to library metadata management. Guided by lessons learned from Cornell University library mapping and transformation activities, the authors apply the literature of data resource management to library metadata management and propose a model for managing MARC metadata repurposing processes through the implementation of a metadata management design.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.144-152
-
Guenther, R.S.: Using the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) for resource description : guidelines and applications (2004)
0.01
0.008982609 = product of:
0.026947826 = sum of:
0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006246961 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 2837, 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=2837)
0.020700864 = product of:
0.04140173 = sum of:
0.04140173 = weight(_text_:22 in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04140173 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2837, 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=2837)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- This paper describes the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS), its accompanying documentation and some of its applications. It reviews the MODS user guidelines provided by the Library of Congress and how they enable a user of the schema to consistently apply MODS as a metadata scheme. Because the schema itself could not fully document appropriate usage, the guidelines provide element definitions, history, relationships with other elements, usage conventions, and examples. Short descriptions of some MODS applications are given and a more detailed discussion of its use in the Library of Congress's Minerva project for Web archiving is given.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.89-98
-
Eden, B.L.: Metadata and librarianship : will MARC survive? (2004)
0.01
0.008982609 = product of:
0.026947826 = sum of:
0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006246961 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 4750, 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=4750)
0.020700864 = product of:
0.04140173 = sum of:
0.04140173 = weight(_text_:22 in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04140173 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4750, 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=4750)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Metadata schema and standards are now a part of the information landscape. Librarianship has slowly realized that MARC is only one of a proliferation of metadata standards, and that MARC has many pros and cons related to its age, original conception, and biases. Should librarianship continue to promote the MARC standard? Are there better metadata standards out there that are more robust, user-friendly, and dynamic in the organization and presentation of information? This special issue examines current initiatives that are actively incorporating MARC standards and concepts into new metadata schemata, while also predicting a future where MARC may not be the metadata schema of choice for the organization and description of information.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.6-7
-
Wisser, K.M.; O'Brien Roper, J.: Maximizing metadata : exploring the EAD-MARC relationship (2003)
0.01
0.008572079 = product of:
0.025716238 = sum of:
0.010929906 = weight(_text_:in in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010929906 = score(doc=154,freq=12.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
0.014786332 = product of:
0.029572664 = sum of:
0.029572664 = weight(_text_:22 in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029572664 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
Jimenez, V.O.R.: Nuevas perspectivas para la catalogacion : metadatos ver MARC (1999)
0.01
0.008364413 = product of:
0.050186478 = sum of:
0.050186478 = product of:
0.100372955 = sum of:
0.100372955 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.100372955 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 5743, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5743)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 30. 3.2002 19:45:22
- Source
- Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.2, S.198-219
-
MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications (2004)
0.01
0.007886044 = product of:
0.04731626 = sum of:
0.04731626 = product of:
0.09463252 = sum of:
0.09463252 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09463252 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1
-
Suominen, O.; Hyvönen, N.: From MARC silos to Linked Data silos? (2017)
0.01
0.007829976 = product of:
0.023489928 = sum of:
0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 3732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009274333 = score(doc=3732,freq=6.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 3732, 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=3732)
0.014215595 = weight(_text_:und in 3732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014215595 = score(doc=3732,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 3732, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3732)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Seit einiger Zeit stellen Bibliotheken ihre bibliografischen Metadadaten verstärkt offen in Form von Linked Data zur Verfügung. Dabei kommen jedoch ganz unterschiedliche Modelle für die Strukturierung der bibliografischen Daten zur Anwendung. Manche Bibliotheken verwenden ein auf FRBR basierendes Modell mit mehreren Schichten von Entitäten, während andere flache, am Datensatz orientierte Modelle nutzen. Der Wildwuchs bei den Datenmodellen erschwert die Nachnutzung der bibliografischen Daten. Im Ergebnis haben die Bibliotheken die früheren MARC-Silos nur mit zueinander inkompatiblen Linked-Data-Silos vertauscht. Deshalb ist es häufig schwierig, Datensets miteinander zu kombinieren und nachzunutzen. Kleinere Unterschiede in der Datenmodellierung lassen sich zwar durch Schema Mappings in den Griff bekommen, doch erscheint es fraglich, ob die Interoperabilität insgesamt zugenommen hat. Der Beitrag stellt die Ergebnisse einer Studie zu verschiedenen veröffentlichten Sets von bibliografischen Daten vor. Dabei werden auch die unterschiedlichen Modelle betrachtet, um bibliografische Daten als RDF darzustellen, sowie Werkzeuge zur Erzeugung von entsprechenden Daten aus dem MARC-Format. Abschließend wird der von der Finnischen Nationalbibliothek verfolgte Ansatz behandelt.
-
MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications (2004)
0.01
0.006900288 = product of:
0.04140173 = sum of:
0.04140173 = product of:
0.08280346 = sum of:
0.08280346 = weight(_text_:22 in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08280346 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7196, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7196)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1
-
MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications part 2 (2004)
0.01
0.006900288 = product of:
0.04140173 = sum of:
0.04140173 = product of:
0.08280346 = sum of:
0.08280346 = weight(_text_:22 in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08280346 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2841, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2841)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2
-
McCallum, S.H.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) (2004)
0.00
0.003943022 = product of:
0.02365813 = sum of:
0.02365813 = product of:
0.04731626 = sum of:
0.04731626 = weight(_text_:22 in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04731626 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 81, 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=81)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.82-88
-
Cundiff, M.V.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) (2004)
0.00
0.003943022 = product of:
0.02365813 = sum of:
0.02365813 = product of:
0.04731626 = sum of:
0.04731626 = weight(_text_:22 in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04731626 = score(doc=2834,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2834, 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=2834)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.52-64
-
Wu, C.-J.: Mapping the Dublin Core to the Chinese MARC (1998)
0.00
0.0021034614 = product of:
0.012620768 = sum of:
0.012620768 = weight(_text_:in in 6269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012620768 = score(doc=6269,freq=4.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 6269, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6269)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- Discusses how to map the Dublin Core to the Chinese MARC that is used by most of the libraries in Taiwan
- Footnote
- [In Chinesisch]
