Search (182 results, page 1 of 10)

  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  1. 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) 0.07 
    0.06983921 = product of:
  0.104758814 = sum of:
    0.017515881 = weight(_text_:information in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017515881 = score(doc=2848,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = 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)
    0.08724293 = sum of:
      0.03795776 = weight(_text_:systems in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03795776 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051966466 = queryNorm
          0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
      0.04928517 = weight(_text_:22 in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04928517 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051966466 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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
  2. UNIMARC and CDS/ISIS : Proceedings of the Workshops held in Budapest, 21.-22. June 1993 and Barcelona, 26. August 1993 (1994) 0.07 
    0.06641902 = product of:
  0.09962853 = sum of:
    0.012385598 = weight(_text_:information in 8779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012385598 = score(doc=8779,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 8779, 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=8779)
    0.08724293 = sum of:
      0.03795776 = weight(_text_:systems in 8779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03795776 = score(doc=8779,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051966466 = queryNorm
          0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 8779, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8779)
      0.04928517 = weight(_text_:22 in 8779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04928517 = score(doc=8779,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051966466 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 8779, 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=8779)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: CAMPOS, F.: UNIMARC: state of the art on the universal format for international exchange; HOLT, B.: The maintenance of UNIMARC; WILLER, M.: UNIMARC / Authorities format; HOPKINSON, A.: CDS/ISIS as a tool for implementing UNIMARC; BERKE, S. u. M. SIPOS: The comprehensive information system of the National Széchényi Library and the Hungarian MARC format; SHRAIBERG, Y.: Application of the CDS/ISIS software package and UNIMARC format in the automated systems of the Russian National Public Library for Science and Technology and other libraries of the Russian Federation; STOKLASOVA, B.: Exchange formats in the Czech Republic: past, present and future
  3. Mönch, C.; Aalberg, T.: Automatic conversion from MARC to FRBR (2003) 0.05 
    0.04744216 = product of:
  0.07116324 = sum of:
    0.008846856 = weight(_text_:information in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008846856 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2422, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2422)
    0.06231638 = sum of:
      0.027112689 = weight(_text_:systems in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027112689 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051966466 = queryNorm
          0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 2422, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2422)
      0.03520369 = weight(_text_:22 in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03520369 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051966466 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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
  4. Coyle, K.: Future considerations : the functional library systems record (2004) 0.04 
    0.043820933 = product of:
  0.1314628 = sum of:
    0.1314628 = sum of:
      0.075136885 = weight(_text_:systems in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.075136885 = score(doc=562,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051966466 = queryNorm
          0.4704818 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
      0.05632591 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05632591 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051966466 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  5. Gopinath, M.A.: Standardization for resource sharing databases (1995) 0.04 
    0.04189027 = product of:
  0.0628354 = sum of:
    0.03467245 = weight(_text_:information in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03467245 = score(doc=4414,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.38007212 = fieldWeight in 4414, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4414)
    0.028162954 = product of:
      0.05632591 = sum of:
        0.05632591 = weight(_text_:22 in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05632591 = score(doc=4414,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4414, 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=4414)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    It is helpful and essential to adopt standards for bibliographic information, project description and institutional information which are shareable for access to information resources within a country. Describes a strategy for adopting international standards of bibliographic information exchange for developing a resource sharing facilitation database in India. A list of 22 ISO standards for information processing is included
    Source
    Library science with a slant to documentation and information studies. 32(1995) no.3, S.i-iv
  6. Chowdhury, G.G.: Record formats for integrated databases : a review and comparison (1996) 0.04 
    0.039739605 = product of:
  0.059609406 = sum of:
    0.032769214 = weight(_text_:information in 7679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032769214 = score(doc=7679,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.3592092 = fieldWeight in 7679, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7679)
    0.026840193 = product of:
      0.053680386 = sum of:
        0.053680386 = weight(_text_:systems in 7679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053680386 = score(doc=7679,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 7679, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7679)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Discusses the issues involved in the development of data formats for computerized information retrieval systems. Integrated databases capable of holding both bibliographic and factual information, in a single database structure, are more convenient for searching and retrieval by end users. Several bibliographic formats have been developed and are used for these bibliographic control puposes. Reviews features of 6 major bibliographic formats: USMARC, UKMARC, UNIMARC, CCF, MIBIS and ABNCD are reviewed. Only 2 formats: CCF and ABNCD are capable of holding both bibliographic and factual information and supporting the design of integrated databases. The comparison suggests that, while CCF makes more detailed provision for bibliographic information, ABNCD makes better provision for factual information such as profiles of institutions, information systems, projects and human experts
    Source
    Information development. 12(1996) no.4, S.218-223
  7. Ranta, J.A.: Queens Borough Public Library's Guidelines for cataloging community information (1996) 0.04 
    0.038274534 = product of:
  0.057411797 = sum of:
    0.032769214 = weight(_text_:information in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032769214 = score(doc=6523,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.3592092 = fieldWeight in 6523, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6523)
    0.024642585 = product of:
      0.04928517 = sum of:
        0.04928517 = weight(_text_:22 in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04928517 = score(doc=6523,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6523, 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=6523)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Currently, few resources exist to guide libraries in the cataloguing of community information using the new USMARC Format for Cammunity Information (1993). In developing a community information database, Queens Borough Public Library, New York City, formulated their own cataloguing procedures for applying AACR2, LoC File Interpretations, and USMARC Format for Community Information to community information. Their practices include entering corporate names directly whenever possible and assigning LC subject headings for classes of persons and topics, adding neighbourhood level geographic subdivisions. The guidelines were specially designed to aid non cataloguers in cataloguing community information and have enabled library to maintain consistency in handling corporate names and in assigning subject headings, while creating database that is highly accessible to library staff and users
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.51-69
  8. Format integration and its effect on cataloging, training, and systems (1993) 0.04 
    0.035845123 = product of:
  0.05376768 = sum of:
    0.021232454 = weight(_text_:information in 67) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021232454 = score(doc=67,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 67, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=67)
    0.032535225 = product of:
      0.06507045 = sum of:
        0.06507045 = weight(_text_:systems in 67) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06507045 = score(doc=67,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 67, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=67)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Information technology and libraries 13(1994) no.1, S.78-79 (K.L. Walter)
  9. Mishra, K.S.: Bibliographic databases and exchange formats (1997) 0.03 
    0.032120734 = product of:
  0.0481811 = sum of:
    0.02001815 = weight(_text_:information in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02001815 = score(doc=1757,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 1757, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1757)
    0.028162954 = product of:
      0.05632591 = sum of:
        0.05632591 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05632591 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1757, 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=1757)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Computers play an important role in the development of bibliographic databases. Exchange formats are needed for the generation and exchange of bibliographic data at different levels: international, national, regional and local. Discusses the formats available at national and international level such as the International Standard Exchange Format (ISO 2709); the various MARC formats and the Common Communication Format (CCF). Work on Indian standards involving the Bureau of Indian Standards, the National Information System for Science and Technology (NISSAT) and other institutions proceeds only slowly
    Source
    DESIDOC bulletin of information technology. 17(1997) no.5, S.17-22
  10. Murphy, C.: Curriculum-enhanced MARC (CEMARC) : a new cataloging format for school librarians (1995) 0.03 
    0.03149032 = product of:
  0.047235478 = sum of:
    0.012385598 = weight(_text_:information in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012385598 = score(doc=5100,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5100, 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=5100)
    0.03484988 = product of:
      0.06969976 = sum of:
        0.06969976 = weight(_text_:22 in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06969976 = score(doc=5100,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 5100, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    11. 9.1996 19:22:20
    Source
    Literacy: traditional, cultural, technological. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the International Association of School Librarianship (selected papers), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh University, School of Library and Information Science, 17-22 Jul 94
  11. Crook, M.: Barbara Tillett discusses cataloging rules and conceptual models (1996) 0.03 
    0.03073005 = product of:
  0.046095073 = sum of:
    0.021452487 = weight(_text_:information in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021452487 = score(doc=7683,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 7683, 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=7683)
    0.024642585 = product of:
      0.04928517 = sum of:
        0.04928517 = weight(_text_:22 in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04928517 = score(doc=7683,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7683, 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=7683)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The chief of cataloguing policy and support office at the LoC presents her views on the usefulness of conceptual modelling in determining future directions for cataloguing and the MARC format. After describing the evolution of bibliographic processes, suggests usign the entity-relationship conceptual model to step back from how we record information today and start thinking about what information really means and why we provide it. Argues that now is the time to reexamine the basic principles which underpin Anglo-American cataloguing codes and that MARC formats should be looked at to see how they can evolve towards a future, improved structure for communicating bibliographic and authority information
    Source
    OCLC newsletter. 1996, no.220, S.20-22
  12. Eden, B.L.: Metadata and librarianship : will MARC survive? (2004) 0.03 
    0.03073005 = product of:
  0.046095073 = sum of:
    0.021452487 = weight(_text_:information in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021452487 = score(doc=4750,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = 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)
    0.024642585 = product of:
      0.04928517 = sum of:
        0.04928517 = weight(_text_:22 in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04928517 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4750, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4750)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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
  13. Hollis, R.; Brunelle, B.S.: Developing a common user interface for information searching (1995) 0.03 
    0.029870933 = product of:
  0.0448064 = sum of:
    0.017693711 = weight(_text_:information in 3364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017693711 = score(doc=3364,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3364, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3364)
    0.027112689 = product of:
      0.054225378 = sum of:
        0.054225378 = weight(_text_:systems in 3364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054225378 = score(doc=3364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.339541 = fieldWeight in 3364, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Reviews the debate over a Common User Interface for databases, across various hardware platforms and operating systems, for both CD-ROM and online searching of bibliographic and full text databases. Discusses the implementation and further development of Z39.50 as an international standard for structured bibliographic data
  14. McKercher, B.; Chang, P.X.: ¬A comparison of USMARC and UNIMARC for system design (1995) 0.03 
    0.029570717 = product of:
  0.044356074 = sum of:
    0.017515881 = weight(_text_:information in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017515881 = score(doc=2627,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 2627, 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=2627)
    0.026840193 = product of:
      0.053680386 = sum of:
        0.053680386 = weight(_text_:systems in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053680386 = score(doc=2627,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Provides a background to the development of the MINISIS relational database management system. The new MINISIS will offer a forms-based 4GL application development environment for building an integrated library system at the heart of which will be the catalogue database. Describes the research on the the database structure involving a comparison between USMARC and UNIMARC. Covers the worldwide use of the 2 systems. Discusses differences in field/subfield content designation; differences in field attributes; access points; linking entries, related fields; control information numbers and codes; USMARC format integration and linkage to other languages and holdings information; linkage with other MARC files; and considerations regarding systems design
  15. Snow, M.: Visual depictions and the use of MARC : a view from the trenches of slide librarianship (1989) 0.03 
    0.029080978 = product of:
  0.08724293 = sum of:
    0.08724293 = sum of:
      0.03795776 = weight(_text_:systems in 2862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03795776 = score(doc=2862,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051966466 = queryNorm
          0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 2862, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2862)
      0.04928517 = weight(_text_:22 in 2862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04928517 = score(doc=2862,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051966466 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2862, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2862)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Paper presented at a symposium on 'Implementing the Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT): Controlled Vocabulary in the Extended MARC format', held at the 1989 Annual Conference of the Art Libraries Society of North America. The only way to get bibliographic records on to campus on-line library catalogues, and slide records on the national bibliographic utilities, is through the use of MARC. Discusses the importance of having individual slide and photograph records on the national bibliographic utilities, and considers the obstacles which currently make this difficult. Discusses mapping to MARC from data base management systems.
    Date
    4.12.1995 22:51:36
  16. Fattahi, R.: ¬A uniform approach to the indexing of cataloguing data in online library systems (1997) 0.03 
    0.028767636 = product of:
  0.043151453 = sum of:
    0.010616227 = weight(_text_:information in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010616227 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 131, 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=131)
    0.032535225 = product of:
      0.06507045 = sum of:
        0.06507045 = weight(_text_:systems in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06507045 = score(doc=131,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Argues that in library cataloguing and for optional functionality of bibliographic records the indexing of fields and subfields should follow a uniform approach. This would maintain effectiveness in searching, retrieval and display of bibliographic information both within systems and between systems. However, a review of different postings to the AUTOCAT and USMARC discussion lists indicates that the indexing and tagging of cataloguing data do not, at present, follow a consistent approach in online library systems. If the rationale of cataloguing principles is to bring uniformity in bibliographic description and effectiveness in access, they should also address the question of uniform approaches to the indexing of cataloguing data. In this context and in terms of the identification and handling of data elements, cataloguing standards (codes, MARC formats and the Z39.50 standard) should be brought closer, in that they should provide guidelines for the designation of data elements for machine readable records
  17. Weber, L.B.: Reading formatting MARC AMC (1990) 0.03 
    0.02821195 = product of:
  0.042317923 = sum of:
    0.01415497 = weight(_text_:information in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01415497 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 484, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=484)
    0.028162954 = product of:
      0.05632591 = sum of:
        0.05632591 = weight(_text_:22 in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05632591 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 484, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=484)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses how archivists use the MARC AMC format to exchange information about archival materials. The paper explains the modifications that MARC AMC introduced to the MARC bibliographic formats; gives examples of a record in generic USMARC AMC, RLIN AMC, and OCLC AMC; and considers the possible impact of format integration. The paper concludes with some thoughts about the changes that MARC AMC is causing in the archival profession.
    Date
    8. 1.2007 14:22:51
  18. Avram, H.D.: Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC): 1961-1974 (2009) 0.03 
    0.028105645 = product of:
  0.042158466 = sum of:
    0.017515881 = weight(_text_:information in 3844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017515881 = score(doc=3844,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 3844, 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=3844)
    0.024642585 = product of:
      0.04928517 = sum of:
        0.04928517 = weight(_text_:22 in 3844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04928517 = score(doc=3844,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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
  19. Skvortsov, V.; Zhlobinskaya, O.; Pashkova, A.: UNIMARC XML slim schema : living in new environment (2005) 0.03 
    0.026954245 = product of:
  0.040431365 = sum of:
    0.021452487 = weight(_text_:information in 4335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021452487 = score(doc=4335,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 4335, 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=4335)
    0.01897888 = product of:
      0.03795776 = sum of:
        0.03795776 = weight(_text_:systems in 4335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03795776 = score(doc=4335,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 4335, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4335)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The paper discusses the role of XML and its perspectives in library information systems, particularly with regards to basic functions of bibliographic formats - storage and transportation of the data. Slim XML Schema for UNIMARC representation is presented, its main features being lossless conversion from MARC to XML, roundtripability from XML back to MARC, support for embedded fields and extended range of indicator values, independence from any specific dialect of MARC format, stability to any changes of the format.
    Footnote
    Vortrag, World Library and Information Congress: 71th IFLA General Conference and Council "Libraries - A voyage of discovery", August 14th - 18th 2005, Oslo, Norway.
    Series
    121 UNIMARC with Information Technology ; 064-E
  20. Salgáné, M.M.: Our electronic era and bibliographic informations computer-related bibliographic data formats, metadata formats and BDML (2005) 0.03 
    0.025010591 = product of:
  0.037515886 = sum of:
    0.015825737 = weight(_text_:information in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015825737 = score(doc=3005,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.1734784 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
    0.02169015 = product of:
      0.0433803 = sum of:
        0.0433803 = weight(_text_:systems in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0433803 = score(doc=3005,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 136
  • d 31
  • f 6
  • pl 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 149
  • m 15
  • s 8
  • el 7
  • x 4
  • n 3
  • b 2
  • ? 1
  • l 1
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications