Search (90 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. ISO 25964 Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies (2008) 0.05
    0.054209933 = product of:
      0.08673589 = sum of:
        0.02800471 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02800471 = score(doc=1169,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
        0.012833798 = weight(_text_:use in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012833798 = score(doc=1169,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
        0.02035913 = weight(_text_:of in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02035913 = score(doc=1169,freq=74.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
        0.006621159 = product of:
          0.013242318 = sum of:
            0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013242318 = score(doc=1169,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.018917091 = product of:
          0.037834182 = sum of:
            0.037834182 = weight(_text_:computers in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037834182 = score(doc=1169,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.21710795 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.17426437 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.625 = coord(5/8)
    
    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.
  2. Tennant, R.: ¬A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty-first century (2004) 0.05
    0.046513073 = product of:
      0.1860523 = sum of:
        0.021862645 = weight(_text_:of in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021862645 = score(doc=2845,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
        0.16418965 = sum of:
          0.10089115 = weight(_text_:computers in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.10089115 = score(doc=2845,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.21710795 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041294612 = queryNorm
              0.464705 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
          0.0632985 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0632985 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041294612 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    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
  3. Johnson, B.C.: XML and MARC : which is "right"? (2001) 0.05
    0.045153156 = product of:
      0.09030631 = sum of:
        0.029222867 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029222867 = score(doc=5423,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
        0.042349376 = weight(_text_:use in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042349376 = score(doc=5423,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
        0.0078097144 = weight(_text_:of in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0078097144 = score(doc=5423,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
        0.010924355 = product of:
          0.02184871 = sum of:
            0.02184871 = weight(_text_:on in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02184871 = score(doc=5423,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 5423, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5423)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    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.
  4. Salgáné, M.M.: Our electronic era and bibliographic informations computer-related bibliographic data formats, metadata formats and BDML (2005) 0.04
    0.0394912 = product of:
      0.0789824 = sum of:
        0.01711173 = weight(_text_:use in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01711173 = score(doc=3005,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.13532647 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
        0.019957775 = weight(_text_:of in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019957775 = score(doc=3005,freq=40.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
              6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
                40.0 = termFreq=40.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
        0.0062424885 = product of:
          0.012484977 = sum of:
            0.012484977 = weight(_text_:on in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.012484977 = score(doc=3005,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.13746344 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.035670407 = product of:
          0.071340814 = sum of:
            0.071340814 = weight(_text_:computers in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.071340814 = score(doc=3005,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.21710795 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.32859606 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    Using new communication technologies libraries must face continuously new questions, possibilities and expectations. This study discusses library-related aspects of our electronic era and how computer-related data formats affect bibliographic dataprocessing to give a summary of the most important results. First bibliographic formats for the exchange of bibliographic and related information in the machine-readable form between different types of computer systems were created more than 30 years ago. The evolution of information technologies leads to the improvement of computer systems. In addition to the development of computers and media types Internet has a great influence on data structure as well. Since the introduction of MARC bibliographic format, technology of data exchange between computers and between different computer systems has reached a very sophisticated stage and has contributed to the creation of new standards in this field. Today libraries work with this new infrastructure that induces many challenges. One of the most significant challenges is moving from a relatively homogenous bibliographic environment to a diverse one. Despite these challenges such changes are achievable and necessary to exploit possibilities of new metadata and technologies like the Internet and XML (Extensible Markup Language). XML is an open standard, a universal language for data on the Web. XML is nearly six-years-old standard designed for the description and computer-based management of (semi)-structured data and structured texts. XML gives developers the power to deliver structured data from a wide variety of applications and it is also an ideal format from server-to-server transfer of structured data. XML also isn't limited for Internet use and is an especially valuable tool in the field of library. In fact, XML's main strength - organizing information - makes it perfect for exchanging data between different systems. Tools that work with the XML can be used to process XML records without incurring additional costs associated with one's own software development. In addition, XML is also a suitable format for library web services. The Department of Computer-related Graphic Design and Library and Information Sciences of Debrecen University launched the BDML (Bibliographic Description Markup Language) development project in order to standardize bibliogrphic description with the help of XML.
    Source
    Librarianship in the information age: Proceedings of the 13th BOBCATSSS Symposium, 31 January - 2 February 2005 in Budapest, Hungary. Eds.: Marte Langeland u.a
  5. Aalberg, T.; Haugen, F.B.; Husby, O.: ¬A Tool for Converting from MARC to FRBR (2006) 0.04
    0.038035642 = product of:
      0.076071285 = sum of:
        0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029945528 = score(doc=2425,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
        0.015619429 = weight(_text_:of in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015619429 = score(doc=2425,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
        0.010924355 = product of:
          0.02184871 = sum of:
            0.02184871 = weight(_text_:on in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02184871 = score(doc=2425,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 2425, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2425)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.019581974 = product of:
          0.039163947 = sum of:
            0.039163947 = weight(_text_:22 in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.039163947 = score(doc=2425,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    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
  6. Avram, H.D.: Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC): 1961-1974 (2009) 0.04
    0.037026566 = product of:
      0.14810626 = sum of:
        0.020662563 = weight(_text_:of in 3844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020662563 = score(doc=3844,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 3844, 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=3844)
        0.1274437 = sum of:
          0.088279754 = weight(_text_:computers in 3844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.088279754 = score(doc=3844,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.21710795 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041294612 = queryNorm
              0.40661687 = fieldWeight in 3844, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3844)
          0.039163947 = weight(_text_:22 in 3844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.039163947 = score(doc=3844,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041294612 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3844, 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=3844)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    The MARC Program of the Library of Congress, led during its formative years by the author of this entry, was a landmark in the history of automation. Technical procedures, standards, and formatting for the catalog record were experimented with and developed in modern form in this project. The project began when computers were mainframe, slow, and limited in storage. So little was known then about many aspects of automation of library information resources that the MARC project can be seen as a pioneering effort with immeasurable impact.
    Date
    27. 8.2011 14:22:53
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  7. Keith, C.: Using XSLT to manipulate MARC metadata (2004) 0.03
    0.034577712 = product of:
      0.069155425 = sum of:
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=4747,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
        0.02008212 = weight(_text_:of in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02008212 = score(doc=4747,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
        0.006621159 = product of:
          0.013242318 = sum of:
            0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013242318 = score(doc=4747,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 4747, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4747)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.016784549 = product of:
          0.033569098 = sum of:
            0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.033569098 = score(doc=4747,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    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
  8. Mönch, C.; Aalberg, T.: Automatic conversion from MARC to FRBR (2003) 0.03
    0.03170923 = product of:
      0.06341846 = sum of:
        0.030249555 = weight(_text_:use in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030249555 = score(doc=2422,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
        0.013664153 = weight(_text_:of in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013664153 = score(doc=2422,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
        0.0055176322 = product of:
          0.0110352645 = sum of:
            0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0110352645 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2422, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2422)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.013987125 = product of:
          0.02797425 = sum of:
            0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02797425 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    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
  9. Cundiff, M.V.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) (2004) 0.03
    0.030081455 = product of:
      0.08021721 = sum of:
        0.03422346 = weight(_text_:use in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03422346 = score(doc=2834,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
        0.023614356 = weight(_text_:of in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023614356 = score(doc=2834,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
        0.0223794 = product of:
          0.0447588 = sum of:
            0.0447588 = weight(_text_:22 in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0447588 = score(doc=2834,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = 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)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    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
  10. Sandberg-Fox, A.M.: ¬The microcomputer revolution (2001) 0.03
    0.028397547 = product of:
      0.07572679 = sum of:
        0.020662563 = weight(_text_:of in 5409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020662563 = score(doc=5409,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 5409, 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=5409)
        0.010924355 = product of:
          0.02184871 = sum of:
            0.02184871 = weight(_text_:on in 5409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02184871 = score(doc=5409,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 5409, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5409)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.044139877 = product of:
          0.088279754 = sum of:
            0.088279754 = weight(_text_:computers in 5409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.088279754 = score(doc=5409,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.21710795 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.40661687 = fieldWeight in 5409, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5409)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    With the introduction of the microcomputer in the 1980s, a revolution of sorts was initiated. In libraries this was evidenced by the acquisition of personal computers and the software to run on them. All that catalogers needed were cataloging rules and a MARC format to ensure their bibliographic control. However, little did catalogers realize they were dealing with an industry that introduced rapid technological changes, which effected continual revision of existing rules and the formulation of special guidelines to deal with the industry's innovative products. This article focuses on the attempts of libraries and organized cataloging groups to develop the Chapter 9 descriptive cataloging rules in AACR2; it highlights selected events and includes cataloging examples that illustrate the evolution of the chapter.
  11. Proffitt, M.: Pulling it all together : use of METS in RLG cultural materials service (2004) 0.03
    0.025959475 = product of:
      0.06922527 = sum of:
        0.03422346 = weight(_text_:use in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03422346 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
        0.012622404 = weight(_text_:of in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012622404 = score(doc=767,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
        0.0223794 = product of:
          0.0447588 = sum of:
            0.0447588 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0447588 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = 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)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    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
  12. Guenther, R.S.: Using the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) for resource description : guidelines and applications (2004) 0.03
    0.025746495 = product of:
      0.068657316 = sum of:
        0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029945528 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
        0.019129815 = weight(_text_:of in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019129815 = score(doc=2837,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
        0.019581974 = product of:
          0.039163947 = sum of:
            0.039163947 = weight(_text_:22 in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.039163947 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = 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)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    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. Khurshid, Z.: From MARC to MARC 21 and beyond : some reflections on MARC and the Arabic language (2002) 0.02
    0.02362854 = product of:
      0.06300944 = sum of:
        0.03422346 = weight(_text_:use in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03422346 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.27065295 = fieldWeight in 4792, 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=4792)
        0.019957775 = weight(_text_:of in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019957775 = score(doc=4792,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
        0.008828212 = product of:
          0.017656423 = sum of:
            0.017656423 = weight(_text_:on in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.017656423 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    The paper aims to review major developments in the MARC format, including a brief description of metadata schemes and cross-walks. It also offers an assessment of how well MARC works for Arabic script materials, a description of the degree to which MARC is used in Saudi Arabia, and the prospects for the use of XML versions of MARC in the Arab world.
  14. Maxwell, R.L.: Bibliographic control (2009) 0.02
    0.020804098 = product of:
      0.055477593 = sum of:
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 3750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=3750,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 3750, 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=3750)
        0.023188837 = weight(_text_:of in 3750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023188837 = score(doc=3750,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 3750, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3750)
        0.006621159 = product of:
          0.013242318 = sum of:
            0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 3750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013242318 = score(doc=3750,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 3750, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3750)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Bibliographic control is the process of creation, exchange, preservation, and use of data about information resources. Formal bibliographic control has been practiced for millennia, but modern techniques began to be developed and implemented in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. A series of cataloging codes characterized this period. These codes governed the creation of library catalogs, first in book form, then on cards, and finally in electronic formats, including MAchine-Readable Cataloging (MARC). The period was also characterized by the rise of shared cataloging programs, allowing the development of resource-saving copy cataloging procedures. Such programs were assisted by the development of cataloging networks such as OCLC and RLG. The twentieth century saw progress in the theory of bibliographic control, including the 1961 Paris Principles, culminating with the early twenty-first century Statement of International Cataloguing Principles and IFLA's Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). Toward the end of the period bibliographic control began to be applied to newly invented electronic media, as "metadata." Trends point toward continued development of collaborative and international approaches to bibliographic control.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  15. Cranefield, S.: Networked knowledge representation and exchange using UML and RDF (2001) 0.02
    0.020674974 = product of:
      0.055133265 = sum of:
        0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029945528 = score(doc=5896,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 5896, 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=5896)
        0.017463053 = weight(_text_:of in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017463053 = score(doc=5896,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
        0.007724685 = product of:
          0.01544937 = sum of:
            0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01544937 = score(doc=5896,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    This paper proposes the use of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) as a language for modelling ontologies for Web resources and the knowledge contained within them. To provide a mechanism for serialising and processing object diagrams representing knowledge, a pair of XSI-T stylesheets have been developed to map from XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) encodings of class diagrams to corresponding RDF schemas and to Java classes representing the concepts in the ontologies. The Java code includes methods for marshalling and unmarshalling object-oriented information between in-memory data structures and RDF serialisations of that information. This provides a convenient mechanism for Java applications to share knowledge on the Web
    Source
    Journal of digital information. 1(2001) no.8
  16. McCallum, S.H.: MARCXML sampler (2005) 0.02
    0.020674974 = product of:
      0.055133265 = sum of:
        0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 4361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029945528 = score(doc=4361,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 4361, 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=4361)
        0.017463053 = weight(_text_:of in 4361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017463053 = score(doc=4361,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 4361, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4361)
        0.007724685 = product of:
          0.01544937 = sum of:
            0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 4361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01544937 = score(doc=4361,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 4361, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4361)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    At the IFLA conference in Glasgow, three years ago, the Information Technology Section organized a workshop on metadata. At that workshop MARCXML was presented, along with plans and expectations for its use. This paper is an update to that report. It reviews the development of an XML schema for MARC 21 and the MARCXML tool kit of transformations. The close relationship of MARCXML to the recent ISO standards work associated with MARC in XML is described. Sketches of interesting applications follow with uses that range from MARCXML as a switching format to a maintenance tool to a record communication format for new XML-based protocols.
    Footnote
    Vortrag, World Library and Information Congress: 71th IFLA General Conference and Council "Libraries - A voyage of discovery", August 14th - 18th 2005, Oslo, Norway.
  17. Coyle, K.: Future considerations : the functional library systems record (2004) 0.02
    0.019768182 = product of:
      0.052715153 = sum of:
        0.017850775 = weight(_text_:of in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017850775 = score(doc=562,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
        0.012484977 = product of:
          0.024969954 = sum of:
            0.024969954 = weight(_text_:on in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.024969954 = score(doc=562,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.0223794 = product of:
          0.0447588 = sum of:
            0.0447588 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0447588 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    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.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.166-174
  18. El-Sherbini, M.A.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2005-06 (2008) 0.02
    0.017500065 = product of:
      0.04666684 = sum of:
        0.0154592255 = weight(_text_:of in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0154592255 = score(doc=249,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 249, 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=249)
        0.008828212 = product of:
          0.017656423 = sum of:
            0.017656423 = weight(_text_:on in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.017656423 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.0223794 = product of:
          0.0447588 = sum of:
            0.0447588 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0447588 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, 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=249)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    This paper reviews library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2005-06. It covers pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of cataloging; Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (FRBR); metadata and its applications and relation to Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC); cataloging tools and standards; authority control; and recruitment, training, and the changing role of catalogers.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  19. Martin, P.: Conventions and notations for knowledge representation and retrieval (2000) 0.02
    0.016869199 = product of:
      0.04498453 = sum of:
        0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025048172 = score(doc=5070,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 5070, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5070)
        0.0066940407 = weight(_text_:of in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0066940407 = score(doc=5070,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.103663445 = fieldWeight in 5070, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5070)
        0.013242318 = product of:
          0.026484637 = sum of:
            0.026484637 = weight(_text_:on in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.026484637 = score(doc=5070,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 5070, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5070)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Much research has focused on the problem of knowledge accessibility, sharing and reuse. Specific languages (e.g. KIF, CG, RDF) and ontologies have been proposed. Common characteristics, conventions or ontological distinctions are beginning to emerge. Since knowledge providers (humans and software agents) must follow common conventions for the knowledge to be widely accessed and re-used, we propose lexical, structural, semantic and ontological conventions based on various knowledge representation projects and our own research. These are minimal conventions that can be followed by most and cover the most common knowledge representation cases. However, agreement and refinements are still required. We also show that a notation can be both readable and expressive by quickly presenting two new notations -- Formalized English (FE) and Frame-CG (FCG) - derived from the CG linear form [9] and Frame-Logics [4]. These notations support the above conventions, and are implemented in our Web-based knowledge representation and document indexation tool, WebKB¹ [7]
    Series
    Lecture notes in computer science; vol.1867: Lecture notes on artificial intelligence
    Source
    Conceptual structures: logical, linguistic, and computational issues. 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS 2000, Darmstadt, Germany, August 14-18, 2000. Ed.: B. Ganter et al
  20. Yee, M.M.: New perspectives on the shared cataloging environment and a MARC 21 shopping list (2004) 0.02
    0.016436256 = product of:
      0.043830015 = sum of:
        0.012622404 = weight(_text_:of in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012622404 = score(doc=132,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 132, 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=132)
        0.008828212 = product of:
          0.017656423 = sum of:
            0.017656423 = weight(_text_:on in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.017656423 = score(doc=132,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 132, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=132)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.0223794 = product of:
          0.0447588 = sum of:
            0.0447588 = weight(_text_:22 in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0447588 = score(doc=132,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 132, 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=132)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    This paper surveys the cataloging literature to collect problems that have been identified with the MARC 21 format. The problems are sorted into (1) problems that are not the fault of MARC 21; (2) problems that perhaps are not problems at all; (3) problems that are connected with the current shared cataloging environment; and 4) other problems with MARC 21 and vendor implementation of it. The author makes recommendations to deal with the true MARC 21 problems that remain after this analysis.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Authors

Languages

  • e 59
  • d 24
  • f 2
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 75
  • el 8
  • s 8
  • m 6
  • n 2
  • b 1
  • More… Less…