-
Eden, B.L.: Metadata and librarianship : will MARC survive? (2004)
0.22
0.22022277 = product of:
0.29363036 = sum of:
0.020812286 = weight(_text_:information in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020812286 = score(doc=4750,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 4750, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4750)
0.15490833 = weight(_text_:standards in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15490833 = score(doc=4750,freq=8.0), product of:
0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.68939996 = fieldWeight in 4750, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4750)
0.11790973 = sum of:
0.07009536 = weight(_text_:organization in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07009536 = score(doc=4750,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.38996086 = fieldWeight in 4750, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4750)
0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047814365 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4750, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4750)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- Metadata schema and standards are now a part of the information landscape. Librarianship has slowly realized that MARC is only one of a proliferation of metadata standards, and that MARC has many pros and cons related to its age, original conception, and biases. Should librarianship continue to promote the MARC standard? Are there better metadata standards out there that are more robust, user-friendly, and dynamic in the organization and presentation of information? This special issue examines current initiatives that are actively incorporating MARC standards and concepts into new metadata schemata, while also predicting a future where MARC may not be the metadata schema of choice for the organization and description of information.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.6-7
-
Tosaka, Y.; Park, J.-r.: RDA: Resource description & access : a survey of the current state of the art (2013)
0.08
0.08483097 = product of:
0.11310796 = sum of:
0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017165681 = score(doc=677,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
0.07824052 = weight(_text_:standards in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07824052 = score(doc=677,freq=4.0), product of:
0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.34819958 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
0.017701752 = product of:
0.035403505 = sum of:
0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035403505 = score(doc=677,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- 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.
- Series
- Advances in information science
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.651-662
-
Guenther, R.; McCallum, S.: New metadata standards for digital resources : MODS and METS (2003)
0.06
0.060776353 = product of:
0.121552706 = sum of:
0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012015978 = score(doc=1250,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
0.10953673 = weight(_text_:standards in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10953673 = score(doc=1250,freq=4.0), product of:
0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.4874794 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
El-Sherbini, M.: Metadata and the future of cataloging (2001)
0.06
0.05792077 = product of:
0.11584154 = sum of:
0.088519044 = weight(_text_:standards in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.088519044 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.39394283 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
0.027322493 = product of:
0.054644987 = sum of:
0.054644987 = weight(_text_:22 in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054644987 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This article is a survey of representative metadata efforts comparing them to MARC 21 metadata in order to determine if new electronic formats require the development of a new set of standards. This study surveys the ongoing metadata projects in order to identify what types of metadata exist and how they are used and also compares and analyzes selected metadata elements in an attempt to illustrate how they are related to MARC 21 metadata format elements.
- Date
- 23. 1.2007 11:22:30
-
McDonough, J.P.: SGML and USMARC standard : applying markup to bibliographic data (1998)
0.02
0.022129761 = product of:
0.088519044 = sum of:
0.088519044 = weight(_text_:standards in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.088519044 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.39394283 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- The recent increase in electronic publishing has led many in the library community to consider altering standards for bibliographic data to promote greater compatibility between digital works and their bibliographic representation. SGML has been prominently mentioned as a mechanism for encoding bibliographic data. Examines the problems and potential of applying SGML to to USMARC record standard, with a particular emphasis on issues of field order and repeatability, character set encoding, and obsolete fields
-
Carvalho, J.R. de; Cordeiro, M.I.; Lopes, A.; Vieira, M.: Meta-information about MARC : an XML framework for validation, explanation and help systems (2004)
0.02
0.020450171 = product of:
0.040900342 = sum of:
0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01699316 = score(doc=2848,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
0.023907183 = product of:
0.047814365 = sum of:
0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047814365 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This article proposes a schema for meta-information about MARC that can express at a fairly comprehensive level the syntactic and semantic aspects of MARC formats in XML, including not only rules but also all texts and examples that are conveyed by MARC documentation. It can be thought of as an XML version of the MARC or UNIMARC manuals, for both machine and human usage. The article explains how such a schema can be the central piece of a more complete framework, to be used in conjunction with "slim" record formats, providing a rich environment for the automated processing of bibliographic data.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.131-137
-
Kurth, M.; Ruddy, D.; Rupp, N.: Repurposing MARC metadata : using digital project experience to develop a metadata management design (2004)
0.02
0.015395639 = product of:
0.030791279 = sum of:
0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01029941 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
0.02049187 = product of:
0.04098374 = sum of:
0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04098374 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Metadata and information technology staff in libraries that are building digital collections typically extract and manipulate MARC metadata sets to provide access to digital content via non-MARC schemes. Metadata processing in these libraries involves defining the relationships between metadata schemes, moving metadata between schemes, and coordinating the intellectual activity and physical resources required to create and manipulate metadata. Actively managing the non-MARC metadata resources used to build digital collections is something most of these libraries have only begun to do. This article proposes strategies for managing MARC metadata repurposing efforts as the first step in a coordinated approach to library metadata management. Guided by lessons learned from Cornell University library mapping and transformation activities, the authors apply the literature of data resource management to library metadata management and propose a model for managing MARC metadata repurposing processes through the implementation of a metadata management design.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.144-152
-
Jimenez, V.O.R.: Nuevas perspectivas para la catalogacion : metadatos ver MARC (1999)
0.01
0.014489941 = product of:
0.057959765 = sum of:
0.057959765 = product of:
0.11591953 = sum of:
0.11591953 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11591953 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 5743, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5743)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 30. 3.2002 19:45:22
- Source
- Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.2, S.198-219
-
MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications (2004)
0.01
0.013661247 = product of:
0.054644987 = sum of:
0.054644987 = product of:
0.109289974 = sum of:
0.109289974 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.109289974 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1
-
MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications (2004)
0.01
0.011953591 = product of:
0.047814365 = sum of:
0.047814365 = product of:
0.09562873 = sum of:
0.09562873 = weight(_text_:22 in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09562873 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7196, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7196)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1
-
MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications part 2 (2004)
0.01
0.011953591 = product of:
0.047814365 = sum of:
0.047814365 = product of:
0.09562873 = sum of:
0.09562873 = weight(_text_:22 in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09562873 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2841, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2841)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2
-
Caplan, P.; Guenther, R.: Metadata for Internet resources : the Dublin Core Metadata Elements Set and its mapping to USMARC (1996)
0.01
0.009659961 = product of:
0.038639843 = sum of:
0.038639843 = product of:
0.07727969 = sum of:
0.07727969 = weight(_text_:22 in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07727969 = score(doc=2408,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2408, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2408)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 13. 1.2007 18:31:22
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.43-58
-
Tennant, R.: ¬A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty-first century (2004)
0.01
0.009659961 = product of:
0.038639843 = sum of:
0.038639843 = product of:
0.07727969 = sum of:
0.07727969 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07727969 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 9.12.2005 19:22:38
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.175-181
-
Proffitt, M.: Pulling it all together : use of METS in RLG cultural materials service (2004)
0.01
0.0068306234 = product of:
0.027322493 = sum of:
0.027322493 = product of:
0.054644987 = sum of:
0.054644987 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054644987 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.65-68
-
McCallum, S.H.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) (2004)
0.01
0.0068306234 = product of:
0.027322493 = sum of:
0.027322493 = product of:
0.054644987 = sum of:
0.054644987 = weight(_text_:22 in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054644987 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.82-88
-
Cundiff, M.V.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) (2004)
0.01
0.0068306234 = product of:
0.027322493 = sum of:
0.027322493 = product of:
0.054644987 = sum of:
0.054644987 = weight(_text_:22 in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054644987 = score(doc=2834,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.52-64
-
Guenther, R.S.: Using the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) for resource description : guidelines and applications (2004)
0.01
0.0059767957 = product of:
0.023907183 = sum of:
0.023907183 = product of:
0.047814365 = sum of:
0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047814365 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.89-98
-
METS: an overview & tutorial : Metadata Encoding & Transmission Standard (METS) (2001)
0.01
0.0053105257 = product of:
0.021242103 = sum of:
0.021242103 = product of:
0.042484205 = sum of:
0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042484205 = score(doc=1323,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Maintaining a library of digital objects of necessaryy requires maintaining metadata about those objects. The metadata necessary for successful management and use of digital objeets is both more extensive than and different from the metadata used for managing collections of printed works and other physical materials. While a library may record descriptive metadata regarding a book in its collection, the book will not dissolve into a series of unconnected pages if the library fails to record structural metadata regarding the book's organization, nor will scholars be unable to evaluate the book's worth if the library fails to note that the book was produced using a Ryobi offset press. The Same cannot be said for a digital version of the saure book. Without structural metadata, the page image or text files comprising the digital work are of little use, and without technical metadata regarding the digitization process, scholars may be unsure of how accurate a reflection of the original the digital version provides. For internal management purposes, a library must have access to appropriate technical metadata in order to periodically refresh and migrate the data, ensuring the durability of valuable resources.
-
Lupovici, C.: ¬L'¬information secondaire du document primaire : format MARC ou SGML? (1997)
0.01
0.0052030715 = product of:
0.020812286 = sum of:
0.020812286 = weight(_text_:information in 892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020812286 = score(doc=892,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 892, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=892)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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
- Footnote
- Übers. des Titels: Secondary information on primary documents: MARC or SGML format?
-
Cranefield, S.: Networked knowledge representation and exchange using UML and RDF (2001)
0.01
0.0052030715 = product of:
0.020812286 = sum of:
0.020812286 = weight(_text_:information in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020812286 = score(doc=5896,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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
