-
USMARC format for bibliographic data : including guidelines for content designation (1994)
0.19
0.19187355 = product of:
0.31978923 = sum of:
0.15033525 = weight(_text_:readable in 8041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15033525 = score(doc=8041,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.5430516 = fieldWeight in 8041, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8041)
0.13496846 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 8041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13496846 = score(doc=8041,freq=10.0), product of:
0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.7694304 = fieldWeight in 8041, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8041)
0.03448553 = product of:
0.06897106 = sum of:
0.06897106 = weight(_text_:data in 8041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06897106 = score(doc=8041,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.48408815 = fieldWeight in 8041, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8041)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- 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
-
Lee, S.; Jacob, E.K.: ¬An integrated approach to metadata interoperability : construction of a conceptual structure between MARC and FRBR (2011)
0.18
0.18402033 = product of:
0.30670053 = sum of:
0.11275144 = weight(_text_:readable in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11275144 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.4072887 = fieldWeight in 302, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=302)
0.09053959 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09053959 = score(doc=302,freq=8.0), product of:
0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 302, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=302)
0.10340951 = sum of:
0.06678094 = weight(_text_:data in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06678094 = score(doc=302,freq=10.0), product of:
0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.46871632 = fieldWeight in 302, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=302)
0.036628567 = weight(_text_:22 in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036628567 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 302, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=302)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Abstract
- Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC) is currently the most broadly used bibliographic standard for encoding and exchanging bibliographic data. However, MARC may not fully support representation of the dynamic nature and semantics of digital resources because of its rigid and single-layered linear structure. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model, which is designed to overcome the problems of MARC, does not provide sufficient data elements and adopts a predetermined hierarchy. A flexible structure for bibliographic data with detailed data elements is needed. Integrating MARC format with the hierarchical structure of FRBR is one approach to meet this need. The purpose of this research is to propose an approach that can facilitate interoperability between MARC and FRBR by providing a conceptual structure that can function as a mediator between MARC data elements and FRBR attributes.
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Devadason, F.J.: Common format for machine-readable bibliographic records for India : a proposal (1978)
0.18
0.17841695 = product of:
0.4460424 = sum of:
0.26308668 = weight(_text_:readable in 5539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.26308668 = score(doc=5539,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.9503403 = fieldWeight in 5539, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5539)
0.18295571 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.18295571 = score(doc=5539,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
1.0429969 = fieldWeight in 5539, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5539)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Source
- Towards a common bibliographic exchange format? International Symposium on Bibliographic Exchange Formats, Taormina, Sicily, 27-29 April 1978
-
Setting the record straight : understanding the MARC format (1993)
0.17
0.17110594 = product of:
0.28517655 = sum of:
0.19529122 = weight(_text_:readable in 2327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.19529122 = score(doc=2327,freq=6.0), product of:
0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.70544475 = fieldWeight in 2327, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2327)
0.06402116 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06402116 = score(doc=2327,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 2327, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2327)
0.025864149 = product of:
0.051728297 = sum of:
0.051728297 = weight(_text_:data in 2327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051728297 = score(doc=2327,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.3630661 = fieldWeight in 2327, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2327)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- 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.
-
Dierickx, H. (Bearb.); Hopkinson, A. (Bearb.): UNISIST reference manual for machine-readable bibliographic description (1986)
0.17
0.16855599 = product of:
0.42138997 = sum of:
0.3006705 = weight(_text_:readable in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.3006705 = score(doc=2033,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
1.0861032 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
0.120719455 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.120719455 = score(doc=2033,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.68819946 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
-
¬The exchange of bibliographic data and the MARC format : Proc. of the International Seminar on the MARC format and the Exchange of Bibliographic Data in Machine Readable Form ... Berlin, June 14-16, 1971 (1972)
0.16
0.15831247 = product of:
0.26385412 = sum of:
0.15033525 = weight(_text_:readable in 4287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15033525 = score(doc=4287,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.5430516 = fieldWeight in 4287, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4287)
0.08536155 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08536155 = score(doc=4287,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.4866305 = fieldWeight in 4287, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4287)
0.028157318 = product of:
0.056314636 = sum of:
0.056314636 = weight(_text_:data in 4287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056314636 = score(doc=4287,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.3952563 = fieldWeight in 4287, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4287)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
-
Furrie, B.; Data Base Development Department of The Follett Software Company: Understanding MARC Bibliographic : Machine-readable cataloging (2000)
0.15
0.15336421 = product of:
0.255607 = sum of:
0.15033525 = weight(_text_:readable in 6772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15033525 = score(doc=6772,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.5430516 = fieldWeight in 6772, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6772)
0.08536155 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08536155 = score(doc=6772,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.4866305 = fieldWeight in 6772, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6772)
0.01991023 = product of:
0.03982046 = sum of:
0.03982046 = weight(_text_:data in 6772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03982046 = score(doc=6772,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 6772, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6772)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Footnote
- Vgl. auch unter: http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/umb/. - Understanding MARC: Bibliographic was a copyrighted work originally published by the Follett Software Co. in 1988 (second edition, 1989, third edition, 1990, fourth edition, 1994, fifth edition, 1998)
-
Maxwell, R.L.: Bibliographic control (2009)
0.15
0.14847405 = product of:
0.24745674 = sum of:
0.11275144 = weight(_text_:readable in 3750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11275144 = score(doc=3750,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.4072887 = fieldWeight in 3750, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3750)
0.11977262 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11977262 = score(doc=3750,freq=14.0), product of:
0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.6828017 = fieldWeight in 3750, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3750)
0.014932672 = product of:
0.029865343 = sum of:
0.029865343 = weight(_text_:data in 3750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029865343 = score(doc=3750,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 3750, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3750)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- 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.
-
Guenther, R.S.: ¬The USMARC Format for Classification Data : development and implementation (1992)
0.15
0.14710832 = product of:
0.24518052 = sum of:
0.15033525 = weight(_text_:readable in 2996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15033525 = score(doc=2996,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.5430516 = fieldWeight in 2996, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2996)
0.060359728 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060359728 = score(doc=2996,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 2996, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2996)
0.03448553 = product of:
0.06897106 = sum of:
0.06897106 = weight(_text_:data in 2996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06897106 = score(doc=2996,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.48408815 = fieldWeight in 2996, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2996)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Abstract
- This paper discusses the newly developed USMARC Format for Classification Data. It reviews its potential uses within an online system and its development as one of the USMARC standards for representing bibliographic and related information in machine-readable form. It provides a summary of the fields in the format, and considers the prospects for its implementation.
- Object
- USMARC for classification data
-
Keyser, P.d.: Conversie van bibliografische gegevens (1997)
0.15
0.14710832 = product of:
0.24518052 = sum of:
0.15033525 = weight(_text_:readable in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15033525 = score(doc=96,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.5430516 = fieldWeight in 96, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=96)
0.060359728 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060359728 = score(doc=96,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 96, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=96)
0.03448553 = product of:
0.06897106 = sum of:
0.06897106 = weight(_text_:data in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06897106 = score(doc=96,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.48408815 = fieldWeight in 96, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=96)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Abstract
- Programs for converting bibligraphic data are not only of interest to libraries but also to researchers compiling bibliographies. However, few programs are currently available. In choosing a suitable program care must be taken to ensure that it is capable of identifying and converting all fields likely to be encountered, to the required format. Optical scanning can provide a convenient solution for converting printed output to machine-readable format. Increasing acceptance of standardised formats will facilitate exchange of data
- Footnote
- Übers. des Titels: Conversion of bibliographic data
-
El-Sherbini, M.A.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2005-06 (2008)
0.14
0.14106841 = product of:
0.23511402 = sum of:
0.15033525 = weight(_text_:readable in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15033525 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.5430516 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
0.060359728 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060359728 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
0.024419045 = product of:
0.04883809 = sum of:
0.04883809 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04883809 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = 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)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- 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
-
Guenther, R.S.: Automating the Library of Congress Classification Scheme : implementation of the USMARC format for classification data (1996)
0.14
0.13621907 = product of:
0.22703177 = sum of:
0.13154334 = weight(_text_:readable in 5578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13154334 = score(doc=5578,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.47517014 = fieldWeight in 5578, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5578)
0.052814763 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052814763 = score(doc=5578,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 5578, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5578)
0.042673662 = product of:
0.085347325 = sum of:
0.085347325 = weight(_text_:data in 5578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.085347325 = score(doc=5578,freq=12.0), product of:
0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.59902847 = fieldWeight in 5578, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5578)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Abstract
- Potential uses for classification data in machine readable form and reasons for the development of a standard, the USMARC Format for Classification Data, which allows for classification data to interact with other USMARC bibliographic and authority data are discussed. The development, structure, content, and use of the standard is reviewed with implementation decisions for the Library of Congress Classification scheme noted. The author examines the implementation of USMARC classification at LC, the conversion of the schedules, and the functionality of the software being used. Problems in the effort are explored, and enhancements desired for the online classification system are considered.
- Object
- USMARC for classification data
-
Fattahi, R.: ¬A uniform approach to the indexing of cataloguing data in online library systems (1997)
0.13
0.1347309 = product of:
0.2245515 = sum of:
0.11275144 = weight(_text_:readable in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11275144 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.4072887 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
0.07840959 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07840959 = score(doc=131,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
0.03339047 = product of:
0.06678094 = sum of:
0.06678094 = weight(_text_:data in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06678094 = score(doc=131,freq=10.0), product of:
0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.46871632 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Abstract
- Argues that in library cataloguing and for optional functionality of bibliographic records the indexing of fields and subfields should follow a uniform approach. This would maintain effectiveness in searching, retrieval and display of bibliographic information both within systems and between systems. However, a review of different postings to the AUTOCAT and USMARC discussion lists indicates that the indexing and tagging of cataloguing data do not, at present, follow a consistent approach in online library systems. If the rationale of cataloguing principles is to bring uniformity in bibliographic description and effectiveness in access, they should also address the question of uniform approaches to the indexing of cataloguing data. In this context and in terms of the identification and handling of data elements, cataloguing standards (codes, MARC formats and the Z39.50 standard) should be brought closer, in that they should provide guidelines for the designation of data elements for machine readable records
-
Kushwoh, S.S.; Gautam, J.N.; Singh, R.: Migration from CDS / ISIS to KOHA : a case study of data conversion from CCF to MARC 21 (2009)
0.13
0.1347309 = product of:
0.2245515 = sum of:
0.11275144 = weight(_text_:readable in 2279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11275144 = score(doc=2279,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.4072887 = fieldWeight in 2279, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2279)
0.07840959 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07840959 = score(doc=2279,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 2279, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2279)
0.03339047 = product of:
0.06678094 = sum of:
0.06678094 = weight(_text_:data in 2279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06678094 = score(doc=2279,freq=10.0), product of:
0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.46871632 = fieldWeight in 2279, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2279)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Abstract
- Standards are important for quality and interoperability in any system. Bibliographic record creation standards such as MARC 21 (Machine Readable Catalogue), CCF (Common Communication Format), UNIMARC (Universal MARC) and their local variations, are in practice all across the library community. ILMS (Integrated Library Management Systems) are using these standards for the design of databases and the creation of bibliographic records. Their use is important for uniformity of the system and bibliographic data, but there are problems when a library wants to switch over from one system to another using different standards. This paper discusses migration from one record standard to another, mapping of data and related issues. Data exported from CDS/ISIS CCF based records to KOHA MARC 21 based records are discussed as a case study. This methodology, with few modifications, can be applied for migration of data in other bibliographicformats too. Freeware tools can be utilized for migration.
-
McCallum, S.H.: Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC): 1975-2007 (2009)
0.13
0.1347091 = product of:
0.22451515 = sum of:
0.11275144 = weight(_text_:readable in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11275144 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.4072887 = fieldWeight in 3841, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3841)
0.045269795 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045269795 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 3841, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3841)
0.06649391 = sum of:
0.029865343 = weight(_text_:data in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029865343 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 3841, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3841)
0.036628567 = weight(_text_:22 in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036628567 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = 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)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- 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
-
Simmons, P.: Preserving compatibility with standard data formats (1994)
0.13
0.12539746 = product of:
0.20899576 = sum of:
0.13154334 = weight(_text_:readable in 7129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13154334 = score(doc=7129,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.47517014 = fieldWeight in 7129, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7129)
0.052814763 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 7129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052814763 = score(doc=7129,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 7129, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7129)
0.024637653 = product of:
0.049275305 = sum of:
0.049275305 = weight(_text_:data in 7129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049275305 = score(doc=7129,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.34584928 = fieldWeight in 7129, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7129)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Abstract
- Librarians in countries without well-established national bibliographic systems increasingly find themselves faced with the problem of establishing local formats for machine-readable cataloguing and for referral data. Often they lack the background and the resources - especially trained staff - either to adopt an existing MARC format or to develop their own. Such international formats as UNIMARC and CCF, despite widespread international use, present problems of their own; MARC formats are not practical for agencies that do not follow standard cataloguing rules, and CCF offers little guidance to agencies wishing to adopt it for local use. A number of techniques useful in adapting and implementing international and national standard formats are presented, with some guidelines for preserving compatibility with standards
-
Chandrakar, R.: Mapping CCF to MARC21 : an experimental approach (2001)
0.12
0.123656236 = product of:
0.20609371 = sum of:
0.11275144 = weight(_text_:readable in 5437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11275144 = score(doc=5437,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.4072887 = fieldWeight in 5437, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5437)
0.07840959 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07840959 = score(doc=5437,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 5437, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5437)
0.014932672 = product of:
0.029865343 = sum of:
0.029865343 = weight(_text_:data in 5437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029865343 = score(doc=5437,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 5437, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5437)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Abstract
- The purpose of this article is to raise and address a number of issues pertaining to the conversion of Common Communication Format (CCF) into MARC21. In this era of global resource sharing, exchange of bibliographic records from one system to another is imperative in today's library communities. Instead of using a single standard to create machine-readable catalogue records, more than 20 standards have emerged and are being used by different institutions. Because of these variations in standards, sharing of resources and transfer of data from one system to another among the institutions locally and globally has become a significant problem. Addressing this problem requires keeping in mind that countries such as India and others in southeast Asia are using the CCF as a standard for creating bibliographic cataloguing records. This paper describes a way to map the bibliographic catalogue records from CCF to MARC21, although 100% mapping is not possible. In addition, the paper describes an experimental approach that enumerates problems that may occur during the mapping of records/exchanging of records and how these problems can be overcome.
-
German, L.: Bibliographic utilities (2009)
0.12
0.11927431 = product of:
0.29818577 = sum of:
0.15033525 = weight(_text_:readable in 3858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15033525 = score(doc=3858,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.5430516 = fieldWeight in 3858, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3858)
0.14785053 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14785053 = score(doc=3858,freq=12.0), product of:
0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.84286875 = fieldWeight in 3858, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3858)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Bibliographic utilities have been in existence for more than 40 years. From the beginning, they were designed to promote resource sharing among their members. The core of a bibliographic utility is the database of bibliographic records. The structure of the bibliographic record is based upon Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC). Other services have evolved from the utilities' bibliographic database.
-
Salgáné, M.M.: Our electronic era and bibliographic informations computer-related bibliographic data formats, metadata formats and BDML (2005)
0.11
0.114236705 = product of:
0.1903945 = sum of:
0.075167626 = weight(_text_:readable in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.075167626 = score(doc=3005,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.2715258 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
0.08536155 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08536155 = score(doc=3005,freq=16.0), product of:
0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.4866305 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
0.029865343 = product of:
0.059730686 = sum of:
0.059730686 = weight(_text_:data in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059730686 = score(doc=3005,freq=18.0), product of:
0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.4192326 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- 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.
-
Coetzee, H.S.: Development of SAMARC : South African format for the exchange of machine readable bibliographic descriptions (1997)
0.11
0.10918635 = product of:
0.27296588 = sum of:
0.21260615 = weight(_text_:readable in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.21260615 = score(doc=889,freq=4.0), product of:
0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.76799095 = fieldWeight in 889, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=889)
0.060359728 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060359728 = score(doc=889,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.04505818 = queryNorm
0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 889, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=889)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- The first edition of 'SAMARC: South African format for the exchange of machine readable descriptions' was published in 1982. Since then a number of important developments in various fields made it essential that the format be updated and revised. A draft second edition was made available in 1993 and the SAMARC manual was published in 1995 by the State Library. In Apr 1997 it was however decided by the South African library community to change to USMARC
