Search (162 results, page 2 of 9)

  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  1. Concise UNIMARC Classification Format : Draft 5 (20000125) (2000) 0.02 
    0.020692015 = product of:
  0.08276806 = sum of:
    0.08276806 = weight(_text_:data in 4421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08276806 = score(doc=4421,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.5589768 = fieldWeight in 4421, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4421)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Object
    UNIMARC for classification data
  2. Shieh, J.: PCC's work on URIs in MARC (2020) 0.02 
    0.020692015 = product of:
  0.08276806 = sum of:
    0.08276806 = weight(_text_:data in 122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08276806 = score(doc=122,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.5589768 = fieldWeight in 122, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=122)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In 2015, the PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC was tasked to identify and address linked data identifiers deployment in the current MARC format. By way of a pilot test, a survey, MARC Discussion papers, Proposals, etc., the Task Group initiated and introduced changes to MARC encoding. The Task Group succeeded in laying the ground work for preparing library data transition from MARC data to a linked data, RDF environment.
  3. Leeves, J.: Harmonising standards for bibliographic data interchange (1993) 0.02 
    0.01828933 = product of:
  0.07315732 = sum of:
    0.07315732 = weight(_text_:data in 6031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07315732 = score(doc=6031,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.49407038 = fieldWeight in 6031, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6031)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Reviews the provision for bibliographic data within EDIFACT, compares those provisions with the BIC draft standards for bibliographic databases and examines the implications for MARC based standards. Outlines the role of the major players involved. Describes stanbdards dealing with EDIFACT in greatest detail. Describes the library systems using the records
  4. ISO 8459: Bibliographic data element directory : Pt.1: Interloan applications (ISO 8459-1:1988). - Pt.2: Acquisition applications (ISO 8459-2:1992). - Pt.3: Information retrieval applications (ISO 8459-3:1994). - Pt.4: Circulation applications (ISO/CD 8459-4:1996) - Pt.5: Data elements for the exchange of cataloguing and metadata (ISO/DIS 8459-5:2000) (1988-) 0.02 
    0.01828933 = product of:
  0.07315732 = sum of:
    0.07315732 = weight(_text_:data in 4439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07315732 = score(doc=4439,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.49407038 = fieldWeight in 4439, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4439)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  5. Xu, A.; Hess, K.; Akerman, L.: From MARC to BIBFRAME 2.0 : Crosswalks (2018) 0.02 
    0.01828933 = product of:
  0.07315732 = sum of:
    0.07315732 = weight(_text_:data in 5172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07315732 = score(doc=5172,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.49407038 = fieldWeight in 5172, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5172)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    One of the big challenges facing academic libraries today is to increase the relevance of the libraries to their user communities. If the libraries can increase the visibility of their resources on the open web, it will increase the chances of the libraries to reach to their user communities via the user's first search experience. BIBFRAME and library Linked Data will enable libraries to publish their resources in a way that the Web understands, consume Linked Data to enrich their resources relevant to the libraries' user communities, and visualize networks across collections. However, one of the important steps for transitioning to BIBFRAME and library Linked Data involves crosswalks, mapping MARC fields and subfields across data models and performing necessary data reformatting to be in compliance with the specifications of the new model, which is currently BIBFRAME 2.0. This article looks into how the Library of Congress has mapped library bibliographic data from the MARC format to the BIBFRAME 2.0 model and vocabulary published and updated since April 2016, available from http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/index.html based on the recently released conversion specifications and converter, developed by the Library of Congress with input from many community members. The BIBFRAME 2.0 standard and conversion tools will enable libraries to transform bibliographic data from MARC into BIBFRAME 2.0, which introduces a Linked Data model as the improved method of bibliographic control for the future, and make bibliographic information more useful within and beyond library communities.
  6. Hegna, K.; Murtomaa, E.: Data mining MARC to find : FRBR? (2003) 0.02 
    0.018105512 = product of:
  0.07242205 = sum of:
    0.07242205 = weight(_text_:data in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07242205 = score(doc=69,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  7. Leazer, G.H.: ¬An examination of data elements for bibliographic description : toward a conceptual schema for the USMARC formats (1992) 0.02 
    0.018105512 = product of:
  0.07242205 = sum of:
    0.07242205 = weight(_text_:data in 4822) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07242205 = score(doc=4822,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 4822, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4822)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  8. Cantrall, D.: From MARC to Mosaic : progressing toward data interchangeability at the Oregon State Archives (1994) 0.02 
    0.018105512 = product of:
  0.07242205 = sum of:
    0.07242205 = weight(_text_:data in 8470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07242205 = score(doc=8470,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 8470, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8470)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Explains the technology used by the Oregon State Archives to relaize the goal of data interchangeability given the prescribed nature of the MARC format. Describes an emergent model of learning and information delivery focusing on the example of World Wide Web, accessed most often by the software client Mosaic, which is the fastest growing segment of the Internet information highway. Also describes The Data Magician, a flexible program which allows for many combinations of input and output formats, and will read unconventional formats such as MARC communications format. Oregon State Archives, using Mosaic and The Data Magician, are consequently able to present valuable electronic information to a variety of users
  9. Guenther, R.S.: ¬The Library of Congress Classification in the USMARC format (1994) 0.02 
    0.018105512 = product of:
  0.07242205 = sum of:
    0.07242205 = weight(_text_:data in 8864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07242205 = score(doc=8864,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 8864, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8864)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The paper reviews the development of the USMARC Format for Classification Data, a standard for communication of classification data in machine-readable form. It considers the uses for online classification schedules, both for technical services and reference functions and gives an overview of the format specification details of data elements used and of the structure of the records. The paper describes an experiment conducted at the Library of Congress to test the format as well as the development of the classification database encompassing the LCC schedules. Features of the classification system are given. The LoC will complete its conversion of the LCC in mid-1995
    Object
    USMARC for classification data
  10. Soergel, D.: Framework for data element standardization (1995) 0.02 
    0.018105512 = product of:
  0.07242205 = sum of:
    0.07242205 = weight(_text_:data in 4574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07242205 = score(doc=4574,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 4574, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4574)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  11. Dextre Clarke, S.G.; Will, L.D.; Cochard, N.: ¬The BS8723 thesaurus data model and exchange format, and its relationship to SKOS (2008) 0.02 
    0.018105512 = product of:
  0.07242205 = sum of:
    0.07242205 = weight(_text_:data in 6051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07242205 = score(doc=6051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 6051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6051)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  12. Schmitz, K.-D.: MARTIF: a new ISO standard for the interchange of terminological data (1995) 0.02 
    0.018105512 = product of:
  0.07242205 = sum of:
    0.07242205 = weight(_text_:data in 6852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07242205 = score(doc=6852,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 6852, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6852)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  13. Duclos-Faure, D.: Format d'echange des donnees locales : ou en sommes-nous? (1997) 0.02 
    0.018105512 = product of:
  0.07242205 = sum of:
    0.07242205 = weight(_text_:data in 888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07242205 = score(doc=888,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 888, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=888)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Since Sep 1996 a group with representatives from the French National Library (BNF), French Joint Catalogue (CCF), Directorate of Scientific and Technical Information (DISTNB), Directorate of Reading (DL) and the Higher Education Bibliography Agency (ABES) has been working on establishing a format for exchanging local data which will accomodtae the needs of all users; conform to international standards and take account of new technological tools (Z39.50-1995). Using pre-existing formats with UNIMARC as the basis, the new format will allow selection of documents by different location criteria, establish conditions of communication and manage interlibrary loan. To date fields have been defined for data on location and management of copies, and for descriptive data on copies
    Footnote
    Übers. des Titels: Formats of exchanging local data: where are we now?
  14. Matoria, R.K.; Upadhyay, P.K.: Migration of data from one library management system to another : a case study in India (2004) 0.02 
    0.018105512 = product of:
  0.07242205 = sum of:
    0.07242205 = weight(_text_:data in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07242205 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  15. Garden, A.: ¬L'avenir des formats de données (2001) 0.02 
    0.018105512 = product of:
  0.07242205 = sum of:
    0.07242205 = weight(_text_:data in 4202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07242205 = score(doc=4202,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 4202, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4202)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Footnote
    Übers. des Titels: The future of data formats
  16. Galvão, R.M.: UNIMARC format relevance : maintenance or replacement? (2018) 0.02 
    0.018105512 = product of:
  0.07242205 = sum of:
    0.07242205 = weight(_text_:data in 5163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07242205 = score(doc=5163,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 5163, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5163)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This article presents an empirical study focused on a qualitative analysis of the UNIMARC format. An analysis of the structural quality of the data provided by the format is evaluated to determine its current suitability for meeting the requirements and trends in data architecture for the information network and the Semantic Web. Driven by a set of quality characteristics that identify weaknesses in the data schema that cannot be bridged by simply converting data to MARC XML or RDF/XML, we conclude that the UNIMARC format is not compliant with the current metadata schema desiderata and must be replaced.
  17. Guenther, R.S.: ¬The USMARC Format for Classification Data : development and implementation (1992) 0.02 
    0.017919812 = product of:
  0.07167925 = sum of:
    0.07167925 = weight(_text_:data in 2996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07167925 = score(doc=2996,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48408815 = fieldWeight in 2996, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2996)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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 for representing bibliographic and related information in machine-readable form. It provides a summary of the fields in the format, and considers the prospects for its implementation.
    Object
    USMARC for classification data
  18. USMARC format for bibliographic data : including guidelines for content designation (1994) 0.02 
    0.017919812 = product of:
  0.07167925 = sum of:
    0.07167925 = weight(_text_:data in 8041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07167925 = score(doc=8041,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48408815 = fieldWeight in 8041, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8041)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Here is the standard for representing and exchanging bibliographic data in machine-readable form in the United States. This comprehensive publication defines the structure of the MARC bibliographic record in full detail. Also defines the codes and conventions (tags, indicators, subfield codes and codes values) that identify the data elements in USMARC bibliographic records. Includes specifications for a National Level Bibliographic record (both full and minimal). The remaining future format integration changes are specified
  19. Aliprand, J.M.: Linking of alternate graphic representation in USMARC authority records (1993) 0.02 
    0.017919812 = product of:
  0.07167925 = sum of:
    0.07167925 = weight(_text_:data in 8341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07167925 = score(doc=8341,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48408815 = fieldWeight in 8341, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8341)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Discusses the facilities in USMARC for linking fields containing non Roman scripts to their Romanized counterparts. In USMARC authority records, the 880 field: Alternate graphic representation (which contains the authentic non Roman text); is linked to the field that contains the same information in romanized form. The 880 field was added to the USMARC Format for Bibliographic Data in 1984 and to the USMARC Format for Authority Data in 1991. The new data elements in the Authority Format are modeled on those of the Bibliographic Format
  20. Guenther, R.S.: ¬The development and implementation of the USMARC format for classification data (1992) 0.02 
    0.017919812 = product of:
  0.07167925 = sum of:
    0.07167925 = weight(_text_:data in 8865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07167925 = score(doc=8865,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48408815 = fieldWeight in 8865, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8865)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
    Object
    USMARC for classification data

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 133
  • d 15
  • f 6
  • nl 2
  • sp 2
  • pl 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 132
  • el 14
  • m 7
  • s 6
  • l 3
  • n 3
  • ? 2
  • b 2
  • r 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications