Search (306 results, page 1 of 16)

0.05655118 = product of:
  0.11310236 = sum of:
    0.005273023 = weight(_text_:in in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005273023 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 3841, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3841)
    0.090355866 = weight(_text_:great in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.090355866 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24206476 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.37327147 = fieldWeight in 3841, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3841)
    0.017473478 = product of:
      0.034946956 = sum of:
        0.034946956 = weight(_text_:22 in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034946956 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3841, 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=3841)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

This entry describes the development of the MARC Communications format. After a brief overview of the initial 10 years it describes the succeeding phases of development up to the present. This takes the reader through the expansion of the format for all types of bibliographic data and for a multiple character scripts. At the same time a large business community was developing that offered products based on the format to the library community. The introduction of the Internet in the 1990s and the Web technology brought new opportunities and challenges and the format was adapted to this new environment. There has been a great deal of international adoption of the format that has continued into the 2000s. More recently new syntaxes for MARC 21 and models are being explored.

Date

27. 8.2011 14:22:38

0.053127162 = product of:
  0.15938148 = sum of:
    0.008788372 = weight(_text_:in in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008788372 = score(doc=663,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
    0.1505931 = weight(_text_:great in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1505931 = score(doc=663,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24206476 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.62211907 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Outlines some goals which format integration has achieved, and also some new problems which it brings. Cataloguers therefore have a great deal to consider in formulating policies

0.02359443 = product of:
  0.07078329 = sum of:
    0.010546046 = weight(_text_:in in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010546046 = score(doc=3005,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
    0.060237244 = weight(_text_:great in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060237244 = score(doc=3005,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24206476 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.015164334 = product of:
  0.045493003 = sum of:
    0.010546046 = weight(_text_:in in 6077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010546046 = score(doc=6077,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = 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)
    0.034946956 = product of:
      0.06989391 = sum of:
        0.06989391 = weight(_text_:22 in 6077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06989391 = score(doc=6077,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

2. 8.2001 16:22:33

Footnote

Rez. in: Library review 48(1999) nos.3/4, S.204-205 (K.V. Trickey)

0.01355489 = product of:
  0.04066467 = sum of:
    0.010546046 = weight(_text_:in in 2312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010546046 = score(doc=2312,freq=72.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 2312, product of:
          8.485281 = tf(freq=72.0), with freq of:
            72.0 = termFreq=72.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2312)
    0.030118622 = weight(_text_:great in 2312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030118622 = score(doc=2312,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24206476 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.12442382 = fieldWeight in 2312, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2312)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 31(2004) no.4, S.255-257: (P. Riva): "Cataloguing standardization at the international level can be viewed as proceeding in a series of milestone conferences. This meeting, the first in a series which will cover different regions of the world, will take its place in that progression. The first IFLA Meeting of Experts an an International Cataloguing Code (IME ICC), held July 28-30, 2003 at Die Deutsche Bibliothek in Frankfurt, gathered representatives of almost all European countries as well as three of the four AACR author countries. As explained in the introduction by Barbara Tillett, chair of the IME ICC planning committee, the plan is for five meetings in total. Subsequent meetings are to take place in Buenos Aires, Argentina (held August 17-18, 2004) for Latin America and the Carribean, to be followed by Alexandria, Egypt (2005) for the Middle East, Seoul, South Korea (2006) for Asia, and Durban, South Africa (2007) for Africa. The impetus for planning these meetings was triggered by the 40th anniversary of the Paris Principles, approved at the International Conference an Cataloguing Principles held in 1961. Many will welcome the timely publication of the reports and papers from this important conference in book form. The original conference website (details given an p. 176) which includes most of the same material, is still extant, but the reports and papers gathered into this volume will be referred to by cataloguing rule makers long after the web as we know it has transformed itself into a new (and quite possibly not backwards compatible) environment.
The book is organized into four sections: introduction and results; presentation papers; background papers; and an appendix. The introduction by Barbara Tillett serves as a summary and report of the IME ICC meeting itself. The statement of the purpose of the meeting bears reporting in full (p. 6): "The goal for this meeting was to increase the ability to share cataloguing information worldwide by promoting standards for the content of bibliographic records and authority records used in library catalogues." The next item is a report summarizing the cataloguing Code comparisons prepared prior to the conference. As a mechanism for discussion, 18 codes were compared with the Paris Principles, the extent of compliance or divergence noted and discussed by representatives from the respective rule-making bodies. During the meeting the presentation of the comparisons took up half of the first day, but for the detailed responses one must return to the IME ICC website. The published summary is very dense, and difficult to follow if one is not very familiar with the Paris Principles or the codes being compared. The main outcome of the meeting follows, this is the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (draft, as approved Dec. 19, 2003 by IME ICC participants), accompanied by a useful Glossary. The most important eontribution of this volume is to serve as the permanent and official record of the Statement as it stands after the first IME ICC meeting. Subsequent meetings will surely suggest modifications and enhancements, but this version of the Statement needs to be widely read and commented on. To this end the website also makes available translations of the Statement into 15 European languages, and the glossary into four languages. Compared to the Paris Principles, this statement covers some familiar ground in the choice of access points and forms of names, but its overall scope is broader, explicitly referring to the role of authority records, entities in bibliographic records and relationships. It concludes with an appendix of "Objectives for the construction of cataloguing codes."
The next section collects three papers, all presented at the meeting by the people best placed to address the topics authoritatively and comprehensively. The first is by John D. Byrum, of the Library of Congress, and Chair of the ISBD Review Group, who clearly and concisely explains the history and role of the ISBDs in "IFLA's ISBD Programme. Purpose, process, and prospects." The next paper, "Brave new FRBR world" is by Patrick Le Boeuf, of the Bibliothèque nationale de France and Chair of the FRBR Review Group (a French version is available an the website). Drawing from his extensive expertise with FRBR, Le Boeuf explains what FRBR is and equally importantly is not, points to its impact in the present context of Code revision, and discusses insights relevant to the working group topics that can be drawn from FRBR. Closing this section is Barbara Tillett's contribution "A Virtual International Authority File," which signals an important change in thinking about international cooperation for bibliographic control. Earlier efforts focussed an getting agreement about form and structure of headings, this view stresses linking authority files to share the intellectual effort yet present headings to the user in the form that is most appropriate culturally.
The section of background papers starts most appropriately by reprinting the Statement of Principles from the 1961 Paris Conference and continues with another twelve papers of varying lengths, most written specifically for the IME ICC. For the published report the papers have been organized to follow the order of topics assigned to the Tive working groups: Working Group 1 Personal names; WG2 Corporate bodies; WG3 Seriality; WG4 Multivolume/multipart structures; and WG5 Uniform titles, GMDs. Pino Buizza and Mauro Guerrini co-author a substantial paper "Author and title access point control: On the way national bibliographic agencies face the issue forty years after the Paris Principles," which was first presented in Italian at the November 2002 workshop an Cataloguing and Authority Control in Rome. Issues that remain unresolved are which name or title to adopt, which form of the name or title, and which entry word to select, while choice of headings has become more uniform. The impact of catalogue language (meaning both the language of the cataloguing agency and of the majority of users of the catalogue) an these choices is explored by examining the headings used in ten national authority files for a full range of names, personal and corporate. The reflections presented are both practical and grounded in theory. Mauro Guerrini, assisted by Pino Buizza and Lucia Sardo, contributes a further new paper "Corporate bodies from ICCP up to 2003," which is an excellent survey of the surprisingly controversial issue of corporate bodies as authors, starting with Panizzi, Jewett, Cutter, Dziatzko, Fumagalli, and Lubetzky, through the debate at the Paris Conference, to the views of Verona, Domanovszky and Carpenter, and work under the auspices of IFLA an the Form and structure of corporate headings (FSCH) project and its Rvew, as well as a look at the archival standard ISAAR(CPF). This paper is the only one to have a comprehensive bibliography.
Ton Heijligers reflects an the relation of the IME ICC effort to AACR and calls for an examination of the principles and function of the concept of main entry in his brief paper "Main entry into the future?" Ingrid Parent's article "From ISBD (S) to ISBD(CR): a voyage of discovery and alignment" is reprinted from Serials Librarian as it tells of the successful project not only to revise an ISBD, but also to harmonize three Codes for serials cataloguing: ISBD (CR), ISSN and AACR. Gunilla Jonsson's paper "The bibliographic unit in the digital context" is a perceptive discussion of level of granularity issues which must be addressed in deciding what to catalogue. Practical issues and user expectation are important considerations, whether the material to be catalogued is digital or analog. Ann Huthwaite's paper "Class of materials concept and GMDs" as well as Tom Delsey's ensuing comments, originated as Joint Steering Committee restricted papers in 2002. It is a great service to have them made widely available in this form as they raise fundamental issues and motivate work that has since taken place, leading to the current major round of revision to AACR. The GMD issue is about more than a list of terms and their placement in the cataloguing record, it is intertwined with consideration of whether the concept of classes of materials is helpful in organizing cataloguing rules, if so, which classes are needed, and how to allow for eventual integration of new types of materials. Useful in the Code comparison exercise is an extract of the section an access points from the draft of revised RAK (German cataloguing rules). Four short papers compare aspects of the Russian Cataloguing Rules with RAK and AACR: Tatiana Maskhoulia covers corporate body headings; Elena Zagorskaya outlines current development an serials and other continuing resources; Natalia N. Kasparova covers multilevel structures; Ljubov Ermakova and Tamara Bakhturina describe the uniform title and GMD provisions. The website includes one more item by Kasparova "Bibliographic record language in multilingual electronic communication." The volume is rounded out by the appendix which includes the conference agenda, the full list of participants, and the reports from the five working groups. Not for the casual reader, this volume is a must read for anyone working an cataloguing code development at the national or international levels, as well as those teaching cataloguing. Any practising cataloguer will benefit from reading the draft statement of principles and the three presentation papers, and dipping into the background papers."
Weitere Rez. in: ZfBB 52(2005) H.3/4, S.227-228 (K. Haller): " ... Im Mittelpunkt der Publikation steht das revidierte Statement of International Cataloguing Principles. Es wendet sich mit seinen Grundsätzen gleichermaßen an Bibliografien und Bibliothekskataloge sowie Datensammlungen in Archiven, Museen und dergleichen Einrichtungen. Terminologisch und inhaltlich geht das Statement von den Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) aus. Durch die Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR) werden die Normdateien und die Sacherschließung in das Statement eingebracht. Die FRBR sind ein theoretisches Modell, ein strategisches Dokument, in dem durch die Entitäten die logischen Zusammenhänge dargestellt und damit die notwendi ge Erschließungsqualität definiert wird. Es geht um klare Grundsätze für Wahl, Anzahl und Art der Suchbegriffe (access points) und deren Beziehungen. ... Insgesamt ist die Publikation sehr zu begrüßen und als Pflichtlektüre allen Verantwortlichen im Erschließungsbereich und dem in Ausbildung befindlichen Nachwuchs dringend zu empfehlen."

0.013326336 = product of:
  0.039979007 = sum of:
    0.007030698 = weight(_text_:in in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007030698 = score(doc=2408,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = 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)
    0.032948308 = product of:
      0.065896615 = sum of:
        0.065896615 = weight(_text_:22 in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.065896615 = score(doc=2408,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.013326336 = product of:
  0.039979007 = sum of:
    0.007030698 = weight(_text_:in in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007030698 = score(doc=2845,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = 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)
    0.032948308 = product of:
      0.065896615 = sum of:
        0.065896615 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.065896615 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.013161702 = product of:
  0.039485104 = sum of:
    0.010655336 = weight(_text_:in in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010655336 = score(doc=5100,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = 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)
    0.02882977 = product of:
      0.05765954 = sum of:
        0.05765954 = weight(_text_:22 in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05765954 = score(doc=5100,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.012453123 = product of:
  0.037359368 = sum of:
    0.014061396 = weight(_text_:in in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014061396 = score(doc=2861,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = 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)
    0.023297971 = product of:
      0.046595942 = sum of:
        0.046595942 = weight(_text_:22 in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046595942 = score(doc=2861,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.012453123 = product of:
  0.037359368 = sum of:
    0.014061396 = weight(_text_:in in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014061396 = score(doc=751,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = 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)
    0.023297971 = product of:
      0.046595942 = sum of:
        0.046595942 = weight(_text_:22 in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046595942 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.01229947 = product of:
  0.073796816 = sum of:
    0.073796816 = weight(_text_:education in 888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073796816 = score(doc=888,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2025344 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.3643668 = fieldWeight in 888, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=888)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Since Sep 1996 a group with representatives from the French National Library (BNF), French Joint Catalogue (CCF), Directorate of Scientific and Technical Information (DISTNB), Directorate of Reading (DL) and the Higher Education Bibliography Agency (ABES) has been working on establishing a format for exchanging local data which will accomodtae the needs of all users; conform to international standards and take account of new technological tools (Z39.50-1995). Using pre-existing formats with UNIMARC as the basis, the new format will allow selection of documents by different location criteria, establish conditions of communication and manage interlibrary loan. To date fields have been defined for data on location and management of copies, and for descriptive data on copies

0.011825167 = product of:
  0.0354755 = sum of:
    0.012177527 = weight(_text_:in in 2830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012177527 = score(doc=2830,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = 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)
    0.023297971 = product of:
      0.046595942 = sum of:
        0.046595942 = weight(_text_:22 in 2830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046595942 = score(doc=2830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.011380568 = product of:
  0.034141704 = sum of:
    0.01375598 = weight(_text_:in in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01375598 = score(doc=6523,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = 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)
    0.020385725 = product of:
      0.04077145 = sum of:
        0.04077145 = weight(_text_:22 in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04077145 = score(doc=6523,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.011080294 = product of:
  0.03324088 = sum of:
    0.009942909 = weight(_text_:in in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009942909 = score(doc=767,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = 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)
    0.023297971 = product of:
      0.046595942 = sum of:
        0.046595942 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046595942 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.011080294 = product of:
  0.03324088 = sum of:
    0.009942909 = weight(_text_:in in 3052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009942909 = score(doc=3052,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = 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)
    0.023297971 = product of:
      0.046595942 = sum of:
        0.046595942 = weight(_text_:22 in 3052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046595942 = score(doc=3052,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.011080294 = product of:
  0.03324088 = sum of:
    0.009942909 = weight(_text_:in in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009942909 = score(doc=484,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = 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)
    0.023297971 = product of:
      0.046595942 = sum of:
        0.046595942 = weight(_text_:22 in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046595942 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.011080294 = product of:
  0.03324088 = sum of:
    0.009942909 = weight(_text_:in in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009942909 = score(doc=249,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = 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)
    0.023297971 = product of:
      0.046595942 = sum of:
        0.046595942 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046595942 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.011080294 = product of:
  0.03324088 = sum of:
    0.009942909 = weight(_text_:in in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009942909 = score(doc=562,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = 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)
    0.023297971 = product of:
      0.046595942 = sum of:
        0.046595942 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046595942 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.010896482 = product of:
  0.032689445 = sum of:
    0.012303721 = weight(_text_:in in 3844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012303721 = score(doc=3844,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = 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)
    0.020385725 = product of:
      0.04077145 = sum of:
        0.04077145 = weight(_text_:22 in 3844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04077145 = score(doc=3844,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.010347021 = product of:
  0.031041062 = sum of:
    0.010655336 = weight(_text_:in in 8779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010655336 = score(doc=8779,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = 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)
    0.020385725 = product of:
      0.04077145 = sum of:
        0.04077145 = weight(_text_:22 in 8779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04077145 = score(doc=8779,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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