-
Byrne, D.J.: MARC manual : understanding and using MARC records (1998)
0.04
0.03610447 = product of:
0.054156706 = sum of:
0.012554439 = weight(_text_:in in 6077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012554439 = score(doc=6077,freq=2.0), product of:
0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 6077, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6077)
0.041602265 = product of:
0.08320453 = sum of:
0.08320453 = weight(_text_:22 in 6077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08320453 = score(doc=6077,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6077, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6077)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 2. 8.2001 16:22:33
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Library review 48(1999) nos.3/4, S.204-205 (K.V. Trickey)
-
Caplan, P.; Guenther, R.: Metadata for Internet resources : the Dublin Core Metadata Elements Set and its mapping to USMARC (1996)
0.03
0.031728417 = product of:
0.04759262 = sum of:
0.008369626 = weight(_text_:in in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008369626 = score(doc=2408,freq=2.0), product of:
0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 2408, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2408)
0.039222997 = product of:
0.07844599 = sum of:
0.07844599 = weight(_text_:22 in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07844599 = score(doc=2408,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This paper discuesses the goals and outcome of the OCLC/NCSA Metadata Workshop held March 1-3, 1995 in Dublin Ohio. The resulting proposed "Dublin Core" Metadata Elements Set is described briefly. An attempt is made to map the Dublin Core data elements to USMARC; problems and outstanding questions are noted.
- 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)
0.03
0.031728417 = product of:
0.04759262 = sum of:
0.008369626 = weight(_text_:in in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008369626 = score(doc=2845,freq=2.0), product of:
0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
0.039222997 = product of:
0.07844599 = sum of:
0.07844599 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07844599 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The current library bibliographic infrastructure was constructed in the early days of computers - before the Web, XML, and a variety of other technological advances that now offer new opportunities. General requirements of a modern metadata infrastructure for libraries are identified, including such qualities as versatility, extensibility, granularity, and openness. A new kind of metadata infrastructure is then proposed that exhibits at least some of those qualities. Some key challenges that must be overcome to implement a change of this magnitude are identified.
- Date
- 9.12.2005 19:22:38
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.175-181
-
Murphy, C.: Curriculum-enhanced MARC (CEMARC) : a new cataloging format for school librarians (1995)
0.03
0.03133644 = product of:
0.047004662 = sum of:
0.012684541 = weight(_text_:in in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012684541 = score(doc=5100,freq=6.0), product of:
0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 5100, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5100)
0.03432012 = product of:
0.06864024 = sum of:
0.06864024 = weight(_text_:22 in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06864024 = score(doc=5100,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = 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)
- Abstract
- Briefly summarizes the problems encountered when attempting to use the USMARC cataloguing format in US school libraries and describes the development of CEMARC format by the Northwest Ohio Educational Technology Foundation (NWOET), which addresses the main problems by: offering sata entry guidelines for a minimum USMARC standard in order to clarify inconsistencies in application; and by suggesting enhancements and new fields that go beyond the USMARC standard. Concludes with brief notes on early CEMARC implementation
- 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
-
Bales, K.: ¬The USMARC formats and visual materials (1989)
0.03
0.029649397 = product of:
0.044474095 = sum of:
0.016739251 = weight(_text_:in in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016739251 = score(doc=2861,freq=8.0), product of:
0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
0.027734846 = product of:
0.05546969 = sum of:
0.05546969 = weight(_text_:22 in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05546969 = score(doc=2861,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2861, 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=2861)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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. Describes how changes are effected in MARC and the role of the various groups in the library community that are involved in the implementing these changes. Discusses the expansion of the formats to accomodate cataloguing and retrieval for visual materials. Expanded capabilities for coding visual materials offer greater opportunity for user access.
- Date
- 4.12.1995 22:40:20
-
El-Sherbini, M.: Metadata and the future of cataloging (2001)
0.03
0.029649397 = product of:
0.044474095 = sum of:
0.016739251 = weight(_text_:in in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016739251 = score(doc=751,freq=8.0), product of:
0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
0.027734846 = product of:
0.05546969 = sum of:
0.05546969 = weight(_text_:22 in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05546969 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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
- Footnote
- Auch in: Library computing 19(2000) nos.3/4, S.180-191
-
Carini, P.; Shepherd, K.: ¬The MARC standard and encoded archival description (2004)
0.03
0.02815431 = product of:
0.042231463 = sum of:
0.014496619 = weight(_text_:in in 2830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014496619 = score(doc=2830,freq=6.0), product of:
0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 2830, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2830)
0.027734846 = product of:
0.05546969 = sum of:
0.05546969 = weight(_text_:22 in 2830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05546969 = score(doc=2830,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This case study details the evolution of descriptive practices and standards used in the Mount Holyoke College Archives and the Five College Finding Aids Access Project, discusses the relationship of Encoded Archival Description (EAD) and the MARC standard in reference to archival description, and addresses the challenges and opportunities of transferring data from one metadata standard to another. The study demonstrates that greater standardization in archival description allows archivists to respond more effectively to technological change.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.18-27
-
Ranta, J.A.: Queens Borough Public Library's Guidelines for cataloging community information (1996)
0.03
0.027095776 = product of:
0.040643662 = sum of:
0.016375672 = weight(_text_:in in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016375672 = score(doc=6523,freq=10.0), product of:
0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 6523, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6523)
0.02426799 = product of:
0.04853598 = sum of:
0.04853598 = weight(_text_:22 in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04853598 = score(doc=6523,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = 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
-
Proffitt, M.: Pulling it all together : use of METS in RLG cultural materials service (2004)
0.03
0.026380857 = product of:
0.039571285 = sum of:
0.011836439 = weight(_text_:in in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011836439 = score(doc=767,freq=4.0), product of:
0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
0.027734846 = product of:
0.05546969 = sum of:
0.05546969 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05546969 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- RLG has used METS for a particular application, that is as a wrapper for structural metadata. When RLG cultural materials was launched, there was no single way to deal with "complex digital objects". METS provides a standard means of encoding metadata regarding the digital objects represented in RCM, and METS has now been fully integrated into the workflow for this service.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.65-68
-
Radwanski, A.: Rozwoj formatu MARC (1996)
0.03
0.026380857 = product of:
0.039571285 = sum of:
0.011836439 = weight(_text_:in in 3052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011836439 = score(doc=3052,freq=4.0), product of:
0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 3052, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3052)
0.027734846 = product of:
0.05546969 = sum of:
0.05546969 = weight(_text_:22 in 3052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05546969 = score(doc=3052,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3052, 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=3052)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Discusses the origins of the MARC format and its development connected with the proceedings of the Library of Congress and the British Library. Presents 2 standards: ISO 2709 and ISBD. Focuses on national and international formats elaborated in the 1970s and 1980s, including UNIMARC (1975) and CCF (1984). Outlines the prospects and directions of MARC format development, that is, integration of the format and implementing MARC in the network environment
- Date
- 22. 2.1999 20:34:37
-
Weber, L.B.: Reading formatting MARC AMC (1990)
0.03
0.026380857 = product of:
0.039571285 = sum of:
0.011836439 = weight(_text_:in in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011836439 = score(doc=484,freq=4.0), product of:
0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 484, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=484)
0.027734846 = product of:
0.05546969 = sum of:
0.05546969 = weight(_text_:22 in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05546969 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = 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
-
El-Sherbini, M.A.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2005-06 (2008)
0.03
0.026380857 = product of:
0.039571285 = sum of:
0.011836439 = weight(_text_:in in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011836439 = score(doc=249,freq=4.0), product of:
0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
0.027734846 = product of:
0.05546969 = sum of:
0.05546969 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05546969 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This paper reviews library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2005-06. It covers pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of cataloging; Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (FRBR); metadata and its applications and relation to Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC); cataloging tools and standards; authority control; and recruitment, training, and the changing role of catalogers.
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Coyle, K.: Future considerations : the functional library systems record (2004)
0.03
0.026380857 = product of:
0.039571285 = sum of:
0.011836439 = weight(_text_:in in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011836439 = score(doc=562,freq=4.0), product of:
0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
0.027734846 = product of:
0.05546969 = sum of:
0.05546969 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05546969 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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
-
Avram, H.D.: Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC): 1961-1974 (2009)
0.03
0.025943225 = product of:
0.038914837 = sum of:
0.014646845 = weight(_text_:in in 3844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014646845 = score(doc=3844,freq=8.0), product of:
0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 3844, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3844)
0.02426799 = product of:
0.04853598 = sum of:
0.04853598 = weight(_text_:22 in 3844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04853598 = score(doc=3844,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = 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
-
UNIMARC and CDS/ISIS : Proceedings of the Workshops held in Budapest, 21.-22. June 1993 and Barcelona, 26. August 1993 (1994)
0.02
0.024635023 = product of:
0.036952533 = sum of:
0.012684541 = weight(_text_:in in 8779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012684541 = score(doc=8779,freq=6.0), product of:
0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 8779, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8779)
0.02426799 = product of:
0.04853598 = sum of:
0.04853598 = weight(_text_:22 in 8779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04853598 = score(doc=8779,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
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
-
Aslanidi, M.; Papadakis, I.; Stefanidakis, M.: Name and title authorities in the music domain : alignment of UNIMARC authorities format with RDA (2018)
0.02
0.024635023 = product of:
0.036952533 = sum of:
0.012684541 = weight(_text_:in in 5178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012684541 = score(doc=5178,freq=6.0), product of:
0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 5178, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5178)
0.02426799 = product of:
0.04853598 = sum of:
0.04853598 = weight(_text_:22 in 5178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04853598 = score(doc=5178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5178, 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=5178)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This article discusses and highlights alignment issues that arise between UNIMARC Authorities Format and Resource Description and Access (RDA) regarding the creation of name and title authorities for musical works and creators. More specifically, RDA, as an implementation of the FRAD model, is compared with the UNIMARC Authorities Format (Updates 2012 and 2016) in an effort to highlight various cases where the discovery of equivalent fields between the two standards is not obvious. The study is envisioned as a first step in an ongoing process of working with the UNIMARC community throughout RDA's advancement and progression regarding the entities [musical] Work and Names.
- Date
- 19. 3.2019 12:17:22
-
Gopinath, M.A.: Standardization for resource sharing databases (1995)
0.02
0.024069648 = product of:
0.03610447 = sum of:
0.008369626 = weight(_text_:in in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008369626 = score(doc=4414,freq=2.0), product of:
0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 4414, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4414)
0.027734846 = product of:
0.05546969 = sum of:
0.05546969 = weight(_text_:22 in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05546969 = score(doc=4414,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = 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
-
Bourne, R.: MARC harmonization : progress and problems (1997)
0.02
0.024069648 = product of:
0.03610447 = sum of:
0.008369626 = weight(_text_:in in 873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008369626 = score(doc=873,freq=2.0), product of:
0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 873, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=873)
0.027734846 = product of:
0.05546969 = sum of:
0.05546969 = weight(_text_:22 in 873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05546969 = score(doc=873,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 873, 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=873)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The British Library have conformed their decision to go ahead with the harmonization programme between the US and UKMARC formats, and although the final date for the changeover is still not yet, they expect the whole process to be over in 2 years, with one further year after that when they will support UKMARC. Describes the progress made so far, and problems that remain to be solved
- Source
- LASER link. 1997, Spring/Summer, S.22-24
-
Mishra, K.S.: Bibliographic databases and exchange formats (1997)
0.02
0.024069648 = product of:
0.03610447 = sum of:
0.008369626 = weight(_text_:in in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008369626 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 1757, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1757)
0.027734846 = product of:
0.05546969 = sum of:
0.05546969 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05546969 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = 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
-
Smith, J.K.; Cunningham, R.L.; Sarapata, S.P.: MARC to ENC MARC : bringing the collection forward (2004)
0.02
0.023083251 = product of:
0.034624875 = sum of:
0.010356884 = weight(_text_:in in 2844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010356884 = score(doc=2844,freq=4.0), product of:
0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 2844, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2844)
0.02426799 = product of:
0.04853598 = sum of:
0.04853598 = weight(_text_:22 in 2844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04853598 = score(doc=2844,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17921144 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051176514 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2844, 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=2844)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This paper will describe the way in which the USMARC cataloging schema is used at the Eisenhower National Clearing-house (ENC). Discussion will include how ENC MARC extensions were developed for cataloging mathematics and science curriculum resources, and how the ENC workflow is integrated into the cataloging interface. The discussion will conclude with a historical look at the in-house data transfer from ENC MARC to the current production of IEEE LOM XML encoding for record sharing and OAI compliance, required under the NSDL project guidelines.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.28-39
