Search (96 results, page 1 of 5)

0.006019162 = product of:
  0.042134132 = sum of:
    0.03531506 = weight(_text_:representation in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03531506 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 302, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=302)
    0.006819073 = product of:
      0.02045722 = sum of:
        0.02045722 = weight(_text_:22 in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02045722 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 302, 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=302)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC) is currently the most broadly used bibliographic standard for encoding and exchanging bibliographic data. However, MARC may not fully support representation of the dynamic nature and semantics of digital resources because of its rigid and single-layered linear structure. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model, which is designed to overcome the problems of MARC, does not provide sufficient data elements and adopts a predetermined hierarchy. A flexible structure for bibliographic data with detailed data elements is needed. Integrating MARC format with the hierarchical structure of FRBR is one approach to meet this need. The purpose of this research is to propose an approach that can facilitate interoperability between MARC and FRBR by providing a conceptual structure that can function as a mediator between MARC data elements and FRBR attributes.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.005045009 = product of:
  0.07063012 = sum of:
    0.07063012 = weight(_text_:representation in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07063012 = score(doc=5070,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.6100114 = fieldWeight in 5070, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5070)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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]

0.005045009 = product of:
  0.07063012 = sum of:
    0.07063012 = weight(_text_:representation in 3918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07063012 = score(doc=3918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.6100114 = fieldWeight in 3918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3918)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.005015969 = product of:
  0.03511178 = sum of:
    0.02942922 = weight(_text_:representation in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02942922 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
    0.0056825615 = product of:
      0.017047685 = sum of:
        0.017047685 = weight(_text_:22 in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017047685 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 154, 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=154)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Encoded Archival Description (EAD) has provided a new way to approach manuscript and archival collection representation. A review of previous representational practices and problems highlights the benefits of using EAD. This new approach should be considered a partner rather than an adversary in the access providing process. Technological capabilities now allow for multiple metadata schemas to be employed in the creation of the finding aid. Crosswalks allow for MARC records to be generated from the detailed encoding of an EAD finding aid. In the process of creating these crosswalks and detailed encoding, EAD has generated more changes in traditional processes and procedures than originally imagined. The North Carolina State University (NCSU) Libraries sought to test the process of crosswalking EAD to MARC, investigating how this process used technology as well as changed physical procedures. By creating a complex and indepth EAD template for finding aids, with accompanying related encoding analogs embedded within the element structure, MARC records were generated that required minor editing and revision for inclusion in the NCSU Libraries OPAC. The creation of this bridge between EAD and MARC has stimulated theoretical discussions about the role of collaboration, technology, and expertise in the ongoing struggle to maximize access to our collections. While this study is a only a first attempt at harnessing this potential, a presentation of the tensions, struggles, and successes provides illumination to some of the larger issues facing special collections today.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.00475648 = product of:
  0.06659072 = sum of:
    0.06659072 = weight(_text_:representation in 8341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06659072 = score(doc=8341,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.57512426 = fieldWeight in 8341, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8341)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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

0.0036409218 = product of:
  0.0509729 = sum of:
    0.0509729 = weight(_text_:representation in 3568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0509729 = score(doc=3568,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.44023782 = fieldWeight in 3568, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3568)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This article explores the history of the representation of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) in the Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC) formats, with a special emphasis on the development of the MARC classification format. Until 2009, the format used to represent the DDC has been a proprietary one that predated the development of the MARC classification format. The need to replace the current editorial support system, the desire to deliver DDC data in a variety of formats to support different uses, and the increasingly global context of editorial work with translation partners around the world prompted the Dewey editorial team, along with OCLC research and development colleagues, to rethink the underlying representation of the DDC and choose the MARC 21 formats for classification and authority data. The discussion is framed with quotes from the writings of Nancy J. Williamson, whose analysis of the content of the Library of Congress Classification (LCC) schedules played a key role in shaping the original MARC classification format.

0.0035673599 = product of:
  0.049943037 = sum of:
    0.049943037 = weight(_text_:representation in 2167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049943037 = score(doc=2167,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.4313432 = fieldWeight in 2167, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2167)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Magda Heiner-Freiling argued for assignment of extra DDC numbers for improved access, including table numbers and other parts of numbers as well as fully built numbers, and for coding to identify component parts of built numbers. Changes to the MARC 21 Bibliographic format that support her approach are found in MARC Proposal No. 2008-01 Representation of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) System in MARC 21 formats. The new 083 Additional Dewey Decimal Classification Number field is used for assignment of extra Dewey numbers for improved access. The new 085 Synthesized Classification Number Components field is used to identify component parts of built Dewey numbers. This paper uses specific examples to show how the new fields can help improve access.

0.0033633395 = product of:
  0.04708675 = sum of:
    0.04708675 = weight(_text_:representation in 2996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04708675 = score(doc=2996,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.40667427 = fieldWeight in 2996, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2996)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Classification research for knowledge representation and organization. Proc. 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991. Ed. by N.J. Williamson u. M. Hudon

0.0033633395 = product of:
  0.04708675 = sum of:
    0.04708675 = weight(_text_:representation in 4020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04708675 = score(doc=4020,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.40667427 = fieldWeight in 4020, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4020)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Traces the history of the MARC formats, for computerized bibliographic records and computerized cataloguing, from the initial work of the Library of Congress in the early 60s through to the various stages of development of the MARC Pilot Project (1966 to 1968); MARC2 (1968 to 1974); Distribution Service (1968); Retrospective Conversion (1968 to 1970); the Committee on Representation in Machine-Readable Form of Bibliographic Information (MARBI) and the USMARC Advisory Group; and the expansion, linkage and integration stages (1980 to the present)

0.0033633395 = product of:
  0.04708675 = sum of:
    0.04708675 = weight(_text_:representation in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04708675 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.40667427 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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

0.003261916 = product of:
  0.045666825 = sum of:
    0.045666825 = product of:
      0.068500236 = sum of:
        0.034404863 = weight(_text_:29 in 5228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034404863 = score(doc=5228,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.38865322 = fieldWeight in 5228, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5228)
        0.03409537 = weight(_text_:22 in 5228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03409537 = score(doc=5228,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5228, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5228)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

29. 9.1996 18:58:22

0.0029429218 = product of:
  0.041200902 = sum of:
    0.041200902 = weight(_text_:representation in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041200902 = score(doc=5896,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.35583997 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.0029429218 = product of:
  0.041200902 = sum of:
    0.041200902 = weight(_text_:representation in 2326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041200902 = score(doc=2326,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.35583997 = fieldWeight in 2326, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2326)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The Memex Research Institute has proposed a research project to describe in machine-readable form all the information needed to create electronic "books" in a standard communications format. Two kinds of extended computer file formats employing the MARC structure will be defined: Access Formats that take into consideration the many existing index and abstract system formats and their associated databases; and Document Formats that provide for storage, representation, transmission, and display of machine-readabie works in text or image form. The formats that emerge can be employed by libraries, publishers, information utilities, and computer users worldwide to convert printed works to electronic forms or to create original works in electric format, and thus foment the creation of networked electronic library collections.

0.0029429218 = product of:
  0.041200902 = sum of:
    0.041200902 = weight(_text_:representation in 4335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041200902 = score(doc=4335,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.35583997 = fieldWeight in 4335, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4335)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

0.0029429218 = product of:
  0.041200902 = sum of:
    0.041200902 = weight(_text_:representation in 544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041200902 = score(doc=544,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.35583997 = fieldWeight in 544, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=544)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

USMARC records that contain non Roman scripts exhibit 2 types of linkage between the Latin script fields and their alternate graphic representation (the non Roman text): linkage based on systematic romanization, and linkage between names for the same person, place or thing. The lack of rules for linkage inhibits copy cataloging and causes inconsistency on record displays. To determine an unequivocal basis for linkage, 4 types of field association in bibliographic records are examined: hierarchy of components; functional equivalence; semantic equivalence; and systematic romanization. Concludes that semantic equivalence is the ideal basis for linkage and can be accomodated by the current structure of the USMARC format for bibliographic data

0.0026095328 = product of:
  0.036533456 = sum of:
    0.036533456 = product of:
      0.054800183 = sum of:
        0.027523888 = weight(_text_:29 in 2830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027523888 = score(doc=2830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2830, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2830)
        0.027276294 = weight(_text_:22 in 2830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027276294 = score(doc=2830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2830, 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=2830)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

9.12.2005 19:29:32

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.18-27

0.0026095328 = product of:
  0.036533456 = sum of:
    0.036533456 = product of:
      0.054800183 = sum of:
        0.027523888 = weight(_text_:29 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027523888 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
        0.027276294 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027276294 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

9.12.2005 19:21:29

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.166-174

0.0025225044 = product of:
  0.03531506 = sum of:
    0.03531506 = weight(_text_:representation in 4350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03531506 = score(doc=4350,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 4350, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4350)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The MARC standard for representing catalogue records and the Z39.50 standard for locating and retrieving them have facilitated interoperability in the library domain for more than a decade. With the increasing ubiquity of XML, these standards are being superseded by MARCXML and MarcXchange for record representation and SRW/U for searching and retrieval. Service providers moving from the older standards to the newer generally need to support both old and new forms during the transition period. YAZ Proxy uses a novel approach to provide SRW/MARCXML access to the Library of Congress catalogue, by translating requests into Z39.50 and querying the older system directly. As a fringe benefit, it also greatly accelerates Z39.50 access.

0.0013776611 = product of:
  0.019287255 = sum of:
    0.019287255 = product of:
      0.05786176 = sum of:
        0.05786176 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05786176 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

30. 3.2002 19:45:22

Source

Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.2, S.198-219

0.0013106616 = product of:
  0.01834926 = sum of:
    0.01834926 = product of:
      0.055047777 = sum of:
        0.055047777 = weight(_text_:29 in 2914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055047777 = score(doc=2914,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.6218451 = fieldWeight in 2914, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2914)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Bibliotheksdienst. 29(1995) H.2, S. 322-327