Search (285 results, page 1 of 15)

  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  1. Campos, F.M.; Lopes, M.I.; Galvao, R.M.: MARC formats and their use : an overview (1995) 0.02 
    0.024570819 = product of:
  0.07371245 = sum of:
    0.044610593 = weight(_text_:use in 3338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044610593 = score(doc=3338,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.4101866 = fieldWeight in 3338, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3338)
    0.017771725 = weight(_text_:of in 3338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017771725 = score(doc=3338,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 3338, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3338)
    0.011330134 = product of:
      0.0339904 = sum of:
        0.0339904 = weight(_text_:29 in 3338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0339904 = score(doc=3338,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12493842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 3338, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3338)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    Reports on work carried out as part of a feasibility study for UseMARCON (User Controlled Generic MARC Converter); a European Community funded project to develop a toolbox capable of converting bibliographic records from any MARC format into any other MARC format through a central conversion format. Reviews the use of MARC formats as internal or cataloguing formats or an exchange formats available in tape magnetic tape services. Special attention is paid to the actual us and use trends of UNIMARC, with particular reference to the role of UNIMARC as a new stage in the evolution of MARC formats, devised to improve and facilitate the exchange of bibliographic information between different systems
    Source
    Program. 29(1995) no.4, S.445-459
  2. Guenther, R.S.: ¬The development and implementation of the USMARC format for classification data (1992) 0.02 
    0.024504565 = product of:
  0.073513694 = sum of:
    0.028725008 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028725008 = score(doc=8865,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 8865, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8865)
    0.029435357 = weight(_text_:use in 8865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029435357 = score(doc=8865,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.27065295 = fieldWeight in 8865, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8865)
    0.015353328 = weight(_text_:of in 8865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015353328 = score(doc=8865,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 8865, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8865)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses the newly developed USMARC Format for Classification Data. It reviews its potential uses within an online system and its development as one of the USMARC standards. It provides a summary of the fields in the format and considers the prospects for its implementation. The papaer describes an experiment currently being conducted at the Library of Congress to create USMARC classification records and use a classification database in classifying materials in the social sciences
    Theme
    Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval
  3. Guenther, R.S.: Automating the Library of Congress Classification Scheme : implementation of the USMARC format for classification data (1996) 0.02 
    0.023296364 = product of:
  0.06988909 = sum of:
    0.02513438 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02513438 = score(doc=5578,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 5578, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5578)
    0.025755936 = weight(_text_:use in 5578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025755936 = score(doc=5578,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 5578, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5578)
    0.018998774 = weight(_text_:of in 5578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018998774 = score(doc=5578,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 5578, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5578)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    Potential uses for classification data in machine readable form and reasons for the development of a standard, the USMARC Format for Classification Data, which allows for classification data to interact with other USMARC bibliographic and authority data are discussed. The development, structure, content, and use of the standard is reviewed with implementation decisions for the Library of Congress Classification scheme noted. The author examines the implementation of USMARC classification at LC, the conversion of the schedules, and the functionality of the software being used. Problems in the effort are explored, and enhancements desired for the online classification system are considered.
    Theme
    Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval
  4. Giordano, R.: ¬The documentation of electronic texts : using Text Encoding Initiative headers: an introduction (1994) 0.02 
    0.022942884 = product of:
  0.06882865 = sum of:
    0.030467471 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030467471 = score(doc=866,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 866, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=866)
    0.022076517 = weight(_text_:use in 866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022076517 = score(doc=866,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 866, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=866)
    0.016284661 = weight(_text_:of in 866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016284661 = score(doc=866,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 866, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=866)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    Presents a general introduction to the form and functions of the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) headers and explains their relationship to the MARC record. The TEI header's main strength is that it documents electronic texts in a standard exchange format that should be understandable to both librarian cataloguers and text encoders outside of librarianship. TEI gives encoders the ability to document the the electronic text itself, its source, its encoding principles, and revisions, as well as non bibliographic characteristics of the text that can support both scholarly analysis and retrieval. Its bibliographic descriptions can be loaded into standard remote bibliographic databases, which should make electronic texts as easy to find for researchers as texts in other media. Presents a brief overview of the TEI header, the file description and ways in which the TEI headers have counterparts in MARC, the Encoding Description, the Profile Description, the Revision Description, the size and complexity of the TEI header, and the use of the TEI header to support document retrieval and analysis, with notes on some of the prospects and problems
  5. Johnson, B.C.: XML and MARC : which is "right"? (2001) 0.02 
    0.022758622 = product of:
  0.06827586 = sum of:
    0.02513438 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02513438 = score(doc=5423,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 5423, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5423)
    0.0364244 = weight(_text_:use in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0364244 = score(doc=5423,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.33491597 = fieldWeight in 5423, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5423)
    0.0067170807 = weight(_text_:of in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067170807 = score(doc=5423,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.120940685 = fieldWeight in 5423, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5423)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    This article explores recent discussions about appropriate mark-up conventions for library information intended for use on the World Wide Web. In particular, the question of whether the MARC 21 format will continue to be useful and whether the time is right for a full-fledged conversion effort to XML is explored. The author concludes that the MARC format will be relevant well into the future, and its use will not hamper access to bibliographic information via the web. Early XML exploratory efforts carried out at the Stanford University's Lane Medical Library are reported on. Although these efforts are a promising start, much more consultation and investigation is needed to arrive at broadly acceptable standards for XML library information encoding and retrieval.
  6. Weber, L.B.: Reading formatting MARC AMC (1990) 0.02 
    0.022585502 = product of:
  0.067756504 = sum of:
    0.041627884 = weight(_text_:use in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041627884 = score(doc=484,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.3827611 = fieldWeight in 484, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=484)
    0.013296372 = weight(_text_:of in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013296372 = score(doc=484,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 484, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=484)
    0.012832243 = product of:
      0.03849673 = sum of:
        0.03849673 = weight(_text_:22 in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03849673 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 484, 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=484)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses how archivists use the MARC AMC format to exchange information about archival materials. The paper explains the modifications that MARC AMC introduced to the MARC bibliographic formats; gives examples of a record in generic USMARC AMC, RLIN AMC, and OCLC AMC; and considers the possible impact of format integration. The paper concludes with some thoughts about the changes that MARC AMC is causing in the archival profession.
    Date
    8. 1.2007 14:22:51
    Footnote
    Simultaneously published as Describing Archival Materials: The Use of the MARC AMC Format
  7. Snow, M.: Visual depictions and the use of MARC : a view from the trenches of slide librarianship (1989) 0.02 
    0.021368679 = product of:
  0.06410603 = sum of:
    0.0364244 = weight(_text_:use in 2862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0364244 = score(doc=2862,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.33491597 = fieldWeight in 2862, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2862)
    0.016453419 = weight(_text_:of in 2862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016453419 = score(doc=2862,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 2862, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2862)
    0.011228213 = product of:
      0.033684637 = sum of:
        0.033684637 = weight(_text_:22 in 2862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033684637 = score(doc=2862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2862, 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=2862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    Paper presented at a symposium on 'Implementing the Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT): Controlled Vocabulary in the Extended MARC format', held at the 1989 Annual Conference of the Art Libraries Society of North America. The only way to get bibliographic records on to campus on-line library catalogues, and slide records on the national bibliographic utilities, is through the use of MARC. Discusses the importance of having individual slide and photograph records on the national bibliographic utilities, and considers the obstacles which currently make this difficult. Discusses mapping to MARC from data base management systems.
    Date
    4.12.1995 22:51:36
  8. Cundiff, M.V.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) (2004) 0.02 
    0.020859381 = product of:
  0.06257814 = sum of:
    0.029435357 = weight(_text_:use in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029435357 = score(doc=2834,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.27065295 = fieldWeight in 2834, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2834)
    0.020310543 = weight(_text_:of in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020310543 = score(doc=2834,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 2834, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2834)
    0.012832243 = product of:
      0.03849673 = sum of:
        0.03849673 = weight(_text_:22 in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03849673 = score(doc=2834,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    This article provides an introductory overview of the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard, better known as METS. It will be of most use to librarians and technical staff who are encountering METS for the first time. The article contains a brief history of the development of METS, a primer covering the basic structure and content of METS documents, and a discussion of several issues relevant to the implementation and continuing development of METS including object models, extension schemata, and application profiles.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.52-64
  9. Murphy, C.: Curriculum-enhanced MARC (CEMARC) : a new cataloging format for school librarians (1995) 0.02 
    0.019362817 = product of:
  0.058088448 = sum of:
    0.025755936 = weight(_text_:use in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025755936 = score(doc=5100,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 5100, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5100)
    0.016453419 = weight(_text_:of in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016453419 = score(doc=5100,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 5100, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5100)
    0.01587909 = product of:
      0.047637273 = sum of:
        0.047637273 = weight(_text_:22 in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047637273 = score(doc=5100,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 5100, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5100)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    Briefly summarizes the problems encountered when attempting to use the USMARC cataloguing format in US school libraries and describes the development of CEMARC format by the Northwest Ohio Educational Technology Foundation (NWOET), which addresses the main problems by: offering sata entry guidelines for a minimum USMARC standard in order to clarify inconsistencies in application; and by suggesting enhancements and new fields that go beyond the USMARC standard. Concludes with brief notes on early CEMARC implementation
    Date
    11. 9.1996 19:22:20
    Imprint
    Kalamazoo, MI : International Association of School Librarianship
    Source
    Literacy: traditional, cultural, technological. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the International Association of School Librarianship (selected papers), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh University, School of Library and Information Science, 17-22 Jul 94
  10. Bales, K.: ¬The USMARC formats and visual materials (1989) 0.02 
    0.018970193 = product of:
  0.05691058 = sum of:
    0.028725008 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028725008 = score(doc=2861,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
    0.015353328 = weight(_text_:of in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015353328 = score(doc=2861,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
    0.012832243 = product of:
      0.03849673 = sum of:
        0.03849673 = weight(_text_:22 in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03849673 = score(doc=2861,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2861, 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=2861)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    Paper presented at a symposium on 'Implementing the Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT): Controlled Vocabulary in the Extended MARC format', held at the 1989 Annual Conference of the Art Libraries Society of North America. Describes how changes are effected in MARC and the role of the various groups in the library community that are involved in the implementing these changes. Discusses the expansion of the formats to accomodate cataloguing and retrieval for visual materials. Expanded capabilities for coding visual materials offer greater opportunity for user access.
    Date
    4.12.1995 22:40:20
  11. Guenther, R.; McCallum, S.: New metadata standards for digital resources : MODS and METS (2003) 0.02 
    0.018285934 = product of:
  0.054857798 = sum of:
    0.025755936 = weight(_text_:use in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025755936 = score(doc=1250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
    0.017771725 = weight(_text_:of in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017771725 = score(doc=1250,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
    0.011330134 = product of:
      0.0339904 = sum of:
        0.0339904 = weight(_text_:29 in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0339904 = score(doc=1250,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12493842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    Metadata has taken an a new took with the advent of XML and digital resources. XML provides a new versatile structure for tagging and packaging metadata as the rapid proliferation of digital resources demands both rapidly produced descriptive data and the encoding of more types of metadata. Two emerging standards are attempting to harness these developments for library needs. The first is the Metadata Object and Description Schema (MODS), a MARC-compatible XML schema for encoding descriptive data. The second standard is the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS), a highly flexible XML schema for packaging the descriptive metadata and various other important types of metadata needed to assure the use and preservation of digital resources.
    Source
    Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 29(2003) no.2, S.11-15
  12. Guenther, R.S.: Using the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) for resource description : guidelines and applications (2004) 0.02 
    0.017812524 = product of:
  0.05343757 = sum of:
    0.025755936 = weight(_text_:use in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025755936 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 2837, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2837)
    0.016453419 = weight(_text_:of in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016453419 = score(doc=2837,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 2837, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2837)
    0.011228213 = product of:
      0.033684637 = sum of:
        0.033684637 = weight(_text_:22 in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033684637 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    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
  13. Proffitt, M.: Pulling it all together : use of METS in RLG cultural materials service (2004) 0.02 
    0.017708015 = product of:
  0.053124044 = sum of:
    0.029435357 = weight(_text_:use in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029435357 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.27065295 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
    0.010856442 = weight(_text_:of in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010856442 = score(doc=767,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
    0.012832243 = product of:
      0.03849673 = sum of:
        0.03849673 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03849673 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    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
  14. ISO 25964 Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies (2008) 0.02 
    0.01754522 = product of:
  0.05263566 = sum of:
    0.024086652 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024086652 = score(doc=1169,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.22419426 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
    0.011038259 = weight(_text_:use in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011038259 = score(doc=1169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.101494856 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
    0.017510746 = weight(_text_:of in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017510746 = score(doc=1169,freq=74.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.31528005 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
          8.602325 = tf(freq=74.0), with freq of:
            74.0 = termFreq=74.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    T.1: Today's thesauri are mostly electronic tools, having moved on from the paper-based era when thesaurus standards were first developed. They are built and maintained with the support of software and need to integrate with other software, such as search engines and content management systems. Whereas in the past thesauri were designed for information professionals trained in indexing and searching, today there is a demand for vocabularies that untrained users will find to be intuitive. ISO 25964 makes the transition needed for the world of electronic information management. However, part 1 retains the assumption that human intellect is usually involved in the selection of indexing terms and in the selection of search terms. If both the indexer and the searcher are guided to choose the same term for the same concept, then relevant documents will be retrieved. This is the main principle underlying thesaurus design, even though a thesaurus built for human users may also be applied in situations where computers make the choices. Efficient exchange of data is a vital component of thesaurus management and exploitation. Hence the inclusion in this standard of recommendations for exchange formats and protocols. Adoption of these will facilitate interoperability between thesaurus management systems and the other computer applications, such as indexing and retrieval systems, that will utilize the data. Thesauri are typically used in post-coordinate retrieval systems, but may also be applied to hierarchical directories, pre-coordinate indexes and classification systems. Increasingly, thesaurus applications need to mesh with others, such as automatic categorization schemes, free-text search systems, etc. Part 2 of ISO 25964 describes additional types of structured vocabulary and gives recommendations to enable interoperation of the vocabularies at all stages of the information storage and retrieval process.
    T.2: The ability to identify and locate relevant information among vast collections and other resources is a major and pressing challenge today. Several different types of vocabulary are in use for this purpose. Some of the most widely used vocabularies were designed a hundred years ago and have been evolving steadily. A different generation of vocabularies is now emerging, designed to exploit the electronic media more effectively. A good understanding of the previous generation is still essential for effective access to collections indexed with them. An important object of ISO 25964 as a whole is to support data exchange and other forms of interoperability in circumstances in which more than one structured vocabulary is applied within one retrieval system or network. Sometimes one vocabulary has to be mapped to another, and it is important to understand both the potential and the limitations of such mappings. In other systems, a thesaurus is mapped to a classification scheme, or an ontology to a thesaurus. Comprehensive interoperability needs to cover the whole range of vocabulary types, whether young or old. Concepts in different vocabularies are related only in that they have the same or similar meaning. However, the meaning can be found in a number of different aspects within each particular type of structured vocabulary: - within terms or captions selected in different languages; - in the notation assigned indicating a place within a larger hierarchy; - in the definition, scope notes, history notes and other notes that explain the significance of that concept; and - in explicit relationships to other concepts or entities within the same vocabulary. In order to create mappings from one structured vocabulary to another it is first necessary to understand, within the context of each different type of structured vocabulary, the significance and relative importance of each of the different elements in defining the meaning of that particular concept. ISO 25964-1 describes the key characteristics of thesauri along with additional advice on best practice. ISO 25964-2 focuses on other types of vocabulary and does not attempt to cover all aspects of good practice. It concentrates on those aspects which need to be understood if one of the vocabularies is to work effectively alongside one or more of the others. Recognizing that a new standard cannot be applied to some existing vocabularies, this part of ISO 25964 provides informative description alongside the recommendations, the aim of which is to enable users and system developers to interpret and implement the existing vocabularies effectively. The remainder of ISO 25964-2 deals with the principles and practicalities of establishing mappings between vocabularies.
    Issue
    Pt.1: Thesauri for information retrieval - Pt.2: Interoperability with other vocabularies.
  15. Tosaka, Y.; Park, J.-r.: RDA: Resource description & access : a survey of the current state of the art (2013) 0.02 
    0.01717419 = product of:
  0.051522568 = sum of:
    0.01795313 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01795313 = score(doc=677,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
    0.018397098 = weight(_text_:use in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018397098 = score(doc=677,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
    0.015172338 = weight(_text_:of in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015172338 = score(doc=677,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    Resource Description & Access (RDA) is intended to provide a flexible and extensible framework that can accommodate all types of content and media within rapidly evolving digital environments while also maintaining compatibility with the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2). The cataloging community is grappling with practical issues in navigating the transition from AACR2 to RDA; there is a definite need to evaluate major subject areas and broader themes in information organization under the new RDA paradigm. This article aims to accomplish this task through a thorough and critical review of the emerging RDA literature published from 2005 to 2011. The review mostly concerns key areas of difference between RDA and AACR2, the relationship of the new cataloging code to metadata standards, the impact on encoding standards such as Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), end user considerations, and practitioners' views on RDA implementation and training. Future research will require more in-depth studies of RDA's expected benefits and the manner in which the new cataloging code will improve resource retrieval and bibliographic control for users and catalogers alike over AACR2. The question as to how the cataloging community can best move forward to the post-AACR2/MARC environment must be addressed carefully so as to chart the future of bibliographic control in the evolving environment of information production, management, and use.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.651-662
  16. Aalberg, T.; Haugen, F.B.; Husby, O.: ¬A Tool for Converting from MARC to FRBR (2006) 0.02 
    0.016806103 = product of:
  0.05041831 = sum of:
    0.025755936 = weight(_text_:use in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025755936 = score(doc=2425,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 2425, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2425)
    0.013434161 = weight(_text_:of in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013434161 = score(doc=2425,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 2425, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2425)
    0.011228213 = product of:
      0.033684637 = sum of:
        0.033684637 = weight(_text_:22 in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033684637 = score(doc=2425,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2425, 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=2425)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    The FRBR model is by many considered to be an important contribution to the next generation of bibliographic catalogues, but a major challenge for the library community is how to use this model on already existing MARC-based bibliographic catalogues. This problem requires a solution for the interpretation and conversion of MARC records, and a tool for this kind of conversion is developed as a part of the Norwegian BIBSYS FRBR project. The tool is based on a systematic approach to the interpretation and conversion process and is designed to be adaptable to the rules applied in different catalogues.
    Source
    Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006
  17. Keith, C.: Using XSLT to manipulate MARC metadata (2004) 0.02 
    0.016324397 = product of:
  0.04897319 = sum of:
    0.022076517 = weight(_text_:use in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022076517 = score(doc=4747,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 4747, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4747)
    0.017272491 = weight(_text_:of in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017272491 = score(doc=4747,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 4747, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4747)
    0.009624182 = product of:
      0.028872546 = sum of:
        0.028872546 = weight(_text_:22 in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028872546 = score(doc=4747,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    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
  18. Lupovici, C.: ¬L'¬information secondaire du document primaire : format MARC ou SGML? (1997) 0.02 
    0.015528487 = product of:
  0.04658546 = sum of:
    0.025755936 = weight(_text_:use in 892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025755936 = score(doc=892,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 892, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=892)
    0.009499387 = weight(_text_:of in 892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009499387 = score(doc=892,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 892, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=892)
    0.011330134 = product of:
      0.0339904 = sum of:
        0.0339904 = weight(_text_:29 in 892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0339904 = score(doc=892,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12493842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 892, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=892)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    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
    Date
    29. 1.1996 16:50:24
  19. Mönch, C.; Aalberg, T.: Automatic conversion from MARC to FRBR (2003) 0.02 
    0.01526334 = product of:
  0.04579002 = sum of:
    0.026017427 = weight(_text_:use in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026017427 = score(doc=2422,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.23922569 = fieldWeight in 2422, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2422)
    0.011752443 = weight(_text_:of in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011752443 = score(doc=2422,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.21160212 = fieldWeight in 2422, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2422)
    0.008020152 = product of:
      0.024060456 = sum of:
        0.024060456 = weight(_text_:22 in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024060456 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2422, 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=2422)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    Catalogs have for centuries been the main tool that enabled users to search for items in a library by author, title, or subject. A catalog can be interpreted as a set of bibliographic records, where each record acts as a surrogate for a publication. Every record describes a specific publication and contains the data that is used to create the indexes of search systems and the information that is presented to the user. Bibliographic records are often captured and exchanged by the use of the MARC format. Although there are numerous rdquodialectsrdquo of the MARC format in use, they are usually crafted on the same basis and are interoperable with each other -to a certain extent. The data model of a MARC-based catalog, however, is rdquo[...] extremely non-normalized with excessive replication of datardquo [1]. For instance, a literary work that exists in numerous editions and translations is likely to yield a large result set because each edition or translation is represented by an individual record, that is unrelated to other records that describe the same work.
    Source
    Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 7th European Conference, proceedings / ECDL 2003, Trondheim, Norway, August 17-22, 2003
  20. Coyle, K.: Future considerations : the functional library systems record (2004) 0.01 
    0.014870058 = product of:
  0.06691526 = sum of:
    0.015353328 = weight(_text_:of in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015353328 = score(doc=562,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.051561933 = product of:
      0.0773429 = sum of:
        0.038846172 = weight(_text_:29 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038846172 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12493842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
        0.03849673 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03849673 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    The paper performs a thought experiment on the concept of a record based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records and library system functions, and concludes that if we want to develop a functional bibliographic record we need to do it within the context of a flexible, functional library systems record structure. The article suggests a new way to look at the library systems record that would allow libraries to move forward in terms of technology but also in terms of serving library users.
    Date
    9.12.2005 19:21:29
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.166-174

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 240
  • m 18
  • s 14
  • el 12
  • l 4
  • n 3
  • ? 2
  • b 2
  • r 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications