-
Chapman, L.: How to catalogue : a practical manual using AACR2 and Library of Congress (1990)
0.09
0.08546595 = product of:
0.25639784 = sum of:
0.17304136 = weight(_text_:united in 6081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.17304136 = score(doc=6081,freq=4.0), product of:
0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.7012641 = fieldWeight in 6081, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6081)
0.08335648 = product of:
0.16671295 = sum of:
0.16671295 = weight(_text_:states in 6081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.16671295 = score(doc=6081,freq=4.0), product of:
0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.6883215 = fieldWeight in 6081, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6081)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- LCSH
- MARC System / United States
- Subject
- MARC System / United States
-
USMARC format for bibliographic data : including guidelines for content designation (1994)
0.06
0.06043355 = product of:
0.18130066 = sum of:
0.122358724 = weight(_text_:united in 8041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.122358724 = score(doc=8041,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.4958686 = fieldWeight in 8041, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8041)
0.05894193 = product of:
0.11788386 = sum of:
0.11788386 = weight(_text_:states in 8041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11788386 = score(doc=8041,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.48671678 = fieldWeight in 8041, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8041)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Here is the standard for representing and exchanging bibliographic data in machine-readable form in the United States. This comprehensive publication defines the structure of the MARC bibliographic record in full detail. Also defines the codes and conventions (tags, indicators, subfield codes and codes values) that identify the data elements in USMARC bibliographic records. Includes specifications for a National Level Bibliographic record (both full and minimal). The remaining future format integration changes are specified
-
Kaiser, M.; Lieder, H.J.; Majcen, K.; Vallant, H.: New ways of sharing and using authority information : the LEAF project (2003)
0.06
0.060214132 = product of:
0.0903212 = sum of:
0.0064847493 = weight(_text_:information in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0064847493 = score(doc=1166,freq=6.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.083984874 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
0.027179992 = weight(_text_:networks in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027179992 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.13064681 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
0.0382371 = weight(_text_:united in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0382371 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.15495893 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
0.018419355 = product of:
0.03683871 = sum of:
0.03683871 = weight(_text_:states in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03683871 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.152099 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(4/6)
- Abstract
- This article presents an overview of the LEAF project (Linking and Exploring Authority Files)1, which has set out to provide a framework for international, collaborative work in the sector of authority data with respect to authority control. Elaborating the virtues of authority control in today's Web environment is an almost futile exercise, since so much has been said and written about it in the last few years.2 The World Wide Web is generally understood to be poorly structured-both with regard to content and to locating required information. Highly structured databases might be viewed as small islands of precision within this chaotic environment. Though the Web in general or any particular structured database would greatly benefit from increased authority control, it should be noted that our following considerations only refer to authority control with regard to databases of "memory institutions" (i.e., libraries, archives, and museums). Moreover, when talking about authority records, we exclusively refer to personal name authority records that describe a specific person. Although different types of authority records could indeed be used in similar ways to the ones presented in this article, discussing those different types is outside the scope of both the LEAF project and this article. Personal name authority records-as are all other "authorities"-are maintained as separate records and linked to various kinds of descriptive records. Name authority records are usually either kept in independent databases or in separate tables in the database containing the descriptive records. This practice points at a crucial benefit: by linking any number of descriptive records to an authorized name record, the records related to this entity are collocated in the database. Variant forms of the authorized name are referenced in the authority records and thus ensure the consistency of the database while enabling search and retrieval operations that produce accurate results. On one hand, authority control may be viewed as a positive prerequisite of a consistent catalogue; on the other, the creation of new authority records is a very time consuming and expensive undertaking. As a consequence, various models of providing access to existing authority records have emerged: the Library of Congress and the French National Library (Bibliothèque nationale de France), for example, make their authority records available to all via a web-based search service.3 In Germany, the Personal Name Authority File (PND, Personennamendatei4) maintained by the German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek, Frankfurt/Main) offers a different approach to shared access: within a closed network, participating institutions have online access to their pooled data. The number of recent projects and initiatives that have addressed the issue of authority control in one way or another is considerable.5 Two important current initiatives should be mentioned here: The Name Authority Cooperative (NACO) and Virtual International Authority File (VIAF).
NACO was established in 1976 and is hosted by the Library of Congress. At the beginning of 2003, nearly 400 institutions were involved in this undertaking, including 43 institutions from outside the United States.6 Despite the enormous success of NACO and the impressive annual growth of the initiative, there are requirements for participation that form an obstacle for many institutions: they have to follow the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) and employ the MARC217 data format. Participating institutions also have to belong to either OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) or RLG (Research Libraries Group) in order to be able to contribute records, and they have to provide a specified minimum number of authority records per year. A recent proof of concept project of the Library of Congress, OCLC and the German National Library-Virtual International Authority File (VIAF)8-will, in its first phase, test automatic linking of the records of the Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF) and the German Personal Name Authority File by using matching algorithms and software developed by OCLC. The results are expected to form the basis of a "Virtual International Authority File". The project will then test the maintenance of the virtual authority file by employing the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)9 to harvest the metadata for new, updated, and deleted records. When using the "Virtual International Authority File" a cataloguer will be able to check the system to see whether the authority record he wants to establish already exists. The final phase of the project will test possibilities for displaying records in the preferred language and script of the end user. Currently, there are still some clear limitations associated with the ways in which authority records are used by memory institutions. One of the main problems has to do with limited access: generally only large institutions or those that are part of a library network have unlimited online access to permanently updated authority records. Smaller institutions outside these networks usually have to fall back on less efficient ways of obtaining authority data, or have no access at all. Cross-domain sharing of authority data between libraries, archives, museums and other memory institutions simply does not happen at present. Public users are, by and large, not even aware that such things as name authority records exist and are excluded from access to these information resources.
-
Setting the record straight : understanding the MARC format (1993)
0.03
0.0348255 = product of:
0.1044765 = sum of:
0.012707461 = weight(_text_:information in 2327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012707461 = score(doc=2327,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2327, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2327)
0.09176904 = weight(_text_:united in 2327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09176904 = score(doc=2327,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 2327, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2327)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- MARC is an acronym for Machine Readable Catalogue or Cataloguing. This general description, howcver, is rather misleading as MARC is neither a kind of catalogue nor a method of cataloguing. In fact, MARC is a Standardformat for representing bibliographic information for handling by computer. While the MARC format was primarily designed to serve the needs of libraries, the concept has since been embraced by the wider information community as a convenient way of storing and exchanging bibliographic data. The original MARC format was developed at the Library of Congress in 1965-6 leading to a pilot project, known as MARC I, which had the aim of investigating the feasibility of producing machine-readable catalogue data. Similar work was in progress in the United Kingdom whcre the Council of the British National Bibliography had set up the BNB MARC Project with the rennt of examining the use of machine-readable data in producing the printed British National Bibliography (BNB). These parallel developments led to Anglo-American co-operation an the MARC 11 project which was initiated in 1968. MARC II was to prove instrumental in defining the concept of MARC as a communications format.
-
Gaschignard, J.-P.: UNIMARC et UNIMARC : attention aux contrefacons (1997)
0.03
0.032985564 = product of:
0.09895669 = sum of:
0.011980709 = weight(_text_:information in 921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011980709 = score(doc=921,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 921, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=921)
0.08697598 = weight(_text_:networks in 921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08697598 = score(doc=921,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.4180698 = fieldWeight in 921, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=921)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- UNIMARC is widely used in French libraries for internal cataloguing, but in versions that differ significantly from the official IFLA form, while the BNF uses its own version for exporting bibliographic information. This situation has in part been created by software suppliers who produce modified versions for small libraries but without precisely detailing the variations. Problems will inevitably arise when such libraries change software or join cataloguing networks
-
Heaney, M.: Object-oriented cataloging (1995)
0.03
0.028862368 = product of:
0.0865871 = sum of:
0.010483121 = weight(_text_:information in 3339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010483121 = score(doc=3339,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3339, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3339)
0.07610398 = weight(_text_:networks in 3339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07610398 = score(doc=3339,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.36581108 = fieldWeight in 3339, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3339)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Catalogues have evolved from lists of physical items present in particular libraries into computerized access and retrieval tools for works dispersed across local and national boundaries. Works themselves are no longer constrained by physical form yet cataloguing rules have not evolved in parallel with these developments. Reanalyzes the nature of works and their publication in an approach based on object oriented modelling and demonstrates the advantages to be gained thereby. Suggests a strategic plan to enable an organic transformation to be made from current MARC based cataloguing to object oriented cataloguing. Proposes major revisions of MARC in order to allow records to maximize the benefits of both computerized databases and high speed data networks. This will involve a fundamental shift away from the AACR philosophy of description of, plus access to, physical items
- Source
- Information technology and libraries. 14(1995) no.3, S.135-153
-
Maxwell, R.L.: Bibliographic control (2009)
0.03
0.025979813 = product of:
0.077939436 = sum of:
0.012707461 = weight(_text_:information in 3750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012707461 = score(doc=3750,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3750, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3750)
0.06523198 = weight(_text_:networks in 3750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06523198 = score(doc=3750,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.31355235 = fieldWeight in 3750, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3750)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Bibliographic control is the process of creation, exchange, preservation, and use of data about information resources. Formal bibliographic control has been practiced for millennia, but modern techniques began to be developed and implemented in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. A series of cataloging codes characterized this period. These codes governed the creation of library catalogs, first in book form, then on cards, and finally in electronic formats, including MAchine-Readable Cataloging (MARC). The period was also characterized by the rise of shared cataloging programs, allowing the development of resource-saving copy cataloging procedures. Such programs were assisted by the development of cataloging networks such as OCLC and RLG. The twentieth century saw progress in the theory of bibliographic control, including the 1961 Paris Principles, culminating with the early twenty-first century Statement of International Cataloguing Principles and IFLA's Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). Toward the end of the period bibliographic control began to be applied to newly invented electronic media, as "metadata." Trends point toward continued development of collaborative and international approaches to bibliographic control.
- Source
- Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
-
Leazer, G.H.: ¬A conceptual schema for the control of bibliographic works (1994)
0.02
0.02244316 = product of:
0.06732948 = sum of:
0.0129694985 = weight(_text_:information in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0129694985 = score(doc=3033,freq=6.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 3033, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3033)
0.054359984 = weight(_text_:networks in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054359984 = score(doc=3033,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.26129362 = fieldWeight in 3033, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3033)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- In this paper I describe a conceptual design of a bibliographic retrieval system that enables more thourough control of bibliographic entities. A bibliographic entity has 2 components: the intellectual work and the physical item. Users searching bibliographic retrieval systems generally do not search for a specific item, but are willing to retrieve one of several alternative manifestations of a work. However, contemporary bibliographic retrieval systems are based solely on the descriptions of items. Works are described only implcitly by collocating descriptions of items. This method has resulted in a tool that does not include important descriptive attributes of the work, e.g. information regarding its history, its genre, or its bibliographic relationships. A bibliographic relationship is an association between 2 bibliographic entities. A system evaluation methodology wasused to create a conceptual schema for a bibliographic retrieval system. The model is based upon an analysis of data elements in the USMARC Formats for Bibliographic Data. The conceptual schema describes a database comprising 2 separate files of bibliographic descriptions, one of works and the other of items. Each file consists of individual descriptive surrogates of their respective entities. the specific data content of each file is defined by a data dictionary. Data elements used in the description of bibliographic works reflect the nature of works as intellectual and linguistic objects. The descriptive elements of bibliographic items describe the physical properties of bibliographic entities. Bibliographic relationships constitute the logical strucutre of the database
- Imprint
- Oxford : Learned Information
- Source
- Navigating the networks: Proceedings of the 1994 Mid-year Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Portland, Oregon, May 21-25, 1994. Ed.: D.L. Andersen et al
-
Xu, A.; Hess, K.; Akerman, L.: From MARC to BIBFRAME 2.0 : Crosswalks (2018)
0.02
0.020615976 = product of:
0.061847925 = sum of:
0.007487943 = weight(_text_:information in 5172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007487943 = score(doc=5172,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5172, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5172)
0.054359984 = weight(_text_:networks in 5172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054359984 = score(doc=5172,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.26129362 = fieldWeight in 5172, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5172)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- One of the big challenges facing academic libraries today is to increase the relevance of the libraries to their user communities. If the libraries can increase the visibility of their resources on the open web, it will increase the chances of the libraries to reach to their user communities via the user's first search experience. BIBFRAME and library Linked Data will enable libraries to publish their resources in a way that the Web understands, consume Linked Data to enrich their resources relevant to the libraries' user communities, and visualize networks across collections. However, one of the important steps for transitioning to BIBFRAME and library Linked Data involves crosswalks, mapping MARC fields and subfields across data models and performing necessary data reformatting to be in compliance with the specifications of the new model, which is currently BIBFRAME 2.0. This article looks into how the Library of Congress has mapped library bibliographic data from the MARC format to the BIBFRAME 2.0 model and vocabulary published and updated since April 2016, available from http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/index.html based on the recently released conversion specifications and converter, developed by the Library of Congress with input from many community members. The BIBFRAME 2.0 standard and conversion tools will enable libraries to transform bibliographic data from MARC into BIBFRAME 2.0, which introduces a Linked Data model as the improved method of bibliographic control for the future, and make bibliographic information more useful within and beyond library communities.
-
Gopinath, M.A.: Standardization for resource sharing databases (1995)
0.02
0.017727878 = product of:
0.053183634 = sum of:
0.029346623 = weight(_text_:information in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029346623 = score(doc=4414,freq=12.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.38007212 = fieldWeight in 4414, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4414)
0.023837011 = product of:
0.047674023 = sum of:
0.047674023 = weight(_text_:22 in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047674023 = score(doc=4414,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- It is helpful and essential to adopt standards for bibliographic information, project description and institutional information which are shareable for access to information resources within a country. Describes a strategy for adopting international standards of bibliographic information exchange for developing a resource sharing facilitation database in India. A list of 22 ISO standards for information processing is included
- Source
- Library science with a slant to documentation and information studies. 32(1995) no.3, S.i-iv
-
Ranta, J.A.: Queens Borough Public Library's Guidelines for cataloging community information (1996)
0.02
0.016197704 = product of:
0.04859311 = sum of:
0.027735729 = weight(_text_:information in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027735729 = score(doc=6523,freq=14.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.3592092 = fieldWeight in 6523, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6523)
0.020857384 = product of:
0.04171477 = sum of:
0.04171477 = weight(_text_:22 in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04171477 = score(doc=6523,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = 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
-
Campos, F.M.: UNIMARC: the virtual format in the virtual age (1998)
0.01
0.014495997 = product of:
0.08697598 = sum of:
0.08697598 = weight(_text_:networks in 5175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08697598 = score(doc=5175,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.4180698 = fieldWeight in 5175, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5175)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- Focuses on the history of the UNIMARC format which was designed as a communication tool among the various national formats used for computerized bibliographic records. Explains the function of UNIMARC and ISBDs in bringing together automated versions of catalogues without greatly compromising individual or local characteristics. Gives examples of European projects which have resulted in products which illustrate the value of UNIMARC and discusses its application to electronic media and future in international networks
-
Mishra, K.S.: Bibliographic databases and exchange formats (1997)
0.01
0.013593431 = product of:
0.04078029 = sum of:
0.016943282 = weight(_text_:information in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016943282 = score(doc=1757,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 1757, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1757)
0.023837011 = product of:
0.047674023 = sum of:
0.047674023 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047674023 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
Murphy, C.: Curriculum-enhanced MARC (CEMARC) : a new cataloging format for school librarians (1995)
0.01
0.013326639 = product of:
0.039979916 = sum of:
0.010483121 = weight(_text_:information in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010483121 = score(doc=5100,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5100, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5100)
0.029496796 = product of:
0.058993593 = sum of:
0.058993593 = weight(_text_:22 in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058993593 = score(doc=5100,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = 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)
- 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
-
Crook, M.: Barbara Tillett discusses cataloging rules and conceptual models (1996)
0.01
0.013004894 = product of:
0.039014682 = sum of:
0.018157298 = weight(_text_:information in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018157298 = score(doc=7683,freq=6.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 7683, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7683)
0.020857384 = product of:
0.04171477 = sum of:
0.04171477 = weight(_text_:22 in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04171477 = score(doc=7683,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7683, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7683)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- The chief of cataloguing policy and support office at the LoC presents her views on the usefulness of conceptual modelling in determining future directions for cataloguing and the MARC format. After describing the evolution of bibliographic processes, suggests usign the entity-relationship conceptual model to step back from how we record information today and start thinking about what information really means and why we provide it. Argues that now is the time to reexamine the basic principles which underpin Anglo-American cataloguing codes and that MARC formats should be looked at to see how they can evolve towards a future, improved structure for communicating bibliographic and authority information
- Source
- OCLC newsletter. 1996, no.220, S.20-22
-
Eden, B.L.: Metadata and librarianship : will MARC survive? (2004)
0.01
0.013004894 = product of:
0.039014682 = sum of:
0.018157298 = weight(_text_:information in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018157298 = score(doc=4750,freq=6.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 4750, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4750)
0.020857384 = product of:
0.04171477 = sum of:
0.04171477 = weight(_text_:22 in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04171477 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4750, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4750)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Metadata schema and standards are now a part of the information landscape. Librarianship has slowly realized that MARC is only one of a proliferation of metadata standards, and that MARC has many pros and cons related to its age, original conception, and biases. Should librarianship continue to promote the MARC standard? Are there better metadata standards out there that are more robust, user-friendly, and dynamic in the organization and presentation of information? This special issue examines current initiatives that are actively incorporating MARC standards and concepts into new metadata schemata, while also predicting a future where MARC may not be the metadata schema of choice for the organization and description of information.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.6-7
-
Holley, R.P.: IFLA and international standards in the area of bibliographic control (1996)
0.01
0.012683997 = product of:
0.07610398 = sum of:
0.07610398 = weight(_text_:networks in 5572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07610398 = score(doc=5572,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.36581108 = fieldWeight in 5572, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5572)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- The Division of Bibliographic Control of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) has taken an active role in standard setting to foster universal bibliographic control (UBC). UBC is built upon the assumption that a national cataloging agency will catalog national imprints and then share the records nationally and internationally. Standards in support of UBC include the International Standard Bibliographic Descriptions, UNIMARC, authority lists, and miscellaneous guidelines. The IFLA standard setting process requires consensus building and compromise among the various traditions of bibliographic control. The increasing importance of library networks and the internationalization of bibliographic control may reduce the importance of IFLA as a standard setting body.
-
Weber, L.B.: Reading formatting MARC AMC (1990)
0.01
0.011939241 = product of:
0.03581772 = sum of:
0.011980709 = weight(_text_:information in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011980709 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 484, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=484)
0.023837011 = product of:
0.047674023 = sum of:
0.047674023 = weight(_text_:22 in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047674023 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = 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
-
Carvalho, J.R. de; Cordeiro, M.I.; Lopes, A.; Vieira, M.: Meta-information about MARC : an XML framework for validation, explanation and help systems (2004)
0.01
0.011894252 = product of:
0.035682756 = sum of:
0.014825371 = weight(_text_:information in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014825371 = score(doc=2848,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
0.020857384 = product of:
0.04171477 = sum of:
0.04171477 = weight(_text_:22 in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04171477 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- This article proposes a schema for meta-information about MARC that can express at a fairly comprehensive level the syntactic and semantic aspects of MARC formats in XML, including not only rules but also all texts and examples that are conveyed by MARC documentation. It can be thought of as an XML version of the MARC or UNIMARC manuals, for both machine and human usage. The article explains how such a schema can be the central piece of a more complete framework, to be used in conjunction with "slim" record formats, providing a rich environment for the automated processing of bibliographic data.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.131-137
-
Avram, H.D.: Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC): 1961-1974 (2009)
0.01
0.011894252 = product of:
0.035682756 = sum of:
0.014825371 = weight(_text_:information in 3844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014825371 = score(doc=3844,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 3844, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3844)
0.020857384 = product of:
0.04171477 = sum of:
0.04171477 = weight(_text_:22 in 3844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04171477 = score(doc=3844,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = 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
- Source
- Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
