Search (214 results, page 1 of 11)

0.12843022 = product of:
  0.19264531 = sum of:
    0.16973633 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16973633 = score(doc=3033,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.86024934 = fieldWeight in 3033, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3033)
    0.02290898 = product of:
      0.04581796 = sum of:
        0.04581796 = weight(_text_:searching in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04581796 = score(doc=3033,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 3033, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3033)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.12321206 = product of:
  0.18481809 = sum of:
    0.1200217 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1200217 = score(doc=3364,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.6082881 = fieldWeight in 3364, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3364)
    0.06479639 = product of:
      0.12959278 = sum of:
        0.12959278 = weight(_text_:searching in 3364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12959278 = score(doc=3364,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.6320768 = fieldWeight in 3364, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Reviews the debate over a Common User Interface for databases, across various hardware platforms and operating systems, for both CD-ROM and online searching of bibliographic and full text databases. Discusses the implementation and further development of Z39.50 as an international standard for structured bibliographic data

0.1183941 = product of:
  0.17759115 = sum of:
    0.14551857 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 7679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14551857 = score(doc=7679,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.73751014 = fieldWeight in 7679, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7679)
    0.032072574 = product of:
      0.06414515 = sum of:
        0.06414515 = weight(_text_:searching in 7679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06414515 = score(doc=7679,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.31286204 = fieldWeight in 7679, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7679)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Discusses the issues involved in the development of data formats for computerized information retrieval systems. Integrated databases capable of holding both bibliographic and factual information, in a single database structure, are more convenient for searching and retrieval by end users. Several bibliographic formats have been developed and are used for these bibliographic control puposes. Reviews features of 6 major bibliographic formats: USMARC, UKMARC, UNIMARC, CCF, MIBIS and ABNCD are reviewed. Only 2 formats: CCF and ABNCD are capable of holding both bibliographic and factual information and supporting the design of integrated databases. The comparison suggests that, while CCF makes more detailed provision for bibliographic information, ABNCD makes better provision for factual information such as profiles of institutions, information systems, projects and human experts

0.11125548 = product of:
  0.16688322 = sum of:
    0.11881542 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11881542 = score(doc=6838,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.6021745 = fieldWeight in 6838, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6838)
    0.048067793 = product of:
      0.09613559 = sum of:
        0.09613559 = weight(_text_:22 in 6838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09613559 = score(doc=6838,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6838, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6838)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Source

Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 13(2001) H.3, S.20-22

0.09670939 = product of:
  0.14506409 = sum of:
    0.117596775 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.117596775 = score(doc=1757,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.5959982 = fieldWeight in 1757, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1757)
    0.02746731 = product of:
      0.05493462 = sum of:
        0.05493462 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05493462 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1757, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1757)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Computers play an important role in the development of bibliographic databases. Exchange formats are needed for the generation and exchange of bibliographic data at different levels: international, national, regional and local. Discusses the formats available at national and international level such as the International Standard Exchange Format (ISO 2709); the various MARC formats and the Common Communication Format (CCF). Work on Indian standards involving the Bureau of Indian Standards, the National Information System for Science and Technology (NISSAT) and other institutions proceeds only slowly

Source

DESIDOC bulletin of information technology. 17(1997) no.5, S.17-22

0.089908004 = product of:
  0.134862 = sum of:
    0.09601736 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09601736 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.4866305 = fieldWeight in 2845, 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=2845)
    0.038844645 = product of:
      0.07768929 = sum of:
        0.07768929 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07768929 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The current library bibliographic infrastructure was constructed in the early days of computers - before the Web, XML, and a variety of other technological advances that now offer new opportunities. General requirements of a modern metadata infrastructure for libraries are identified, including such qualities as versatility, extensibility, granularity, and openness. A new kind of metadata infrastructure is then proposed that exhibits at least some of those qualities. Some key challenges that must be overcome to implement a change of this magnitude are identified.

Date

9.12.2005 19:22:38

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.175-181

0.08964205 = product of:
  0.13446307 = sum of:
    0.11386259 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11386259 = score(doc=136,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.5770728 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
    0.020600483 = product of:
      0.041200966 = sum of:
        0.041200966 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041200966 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 136, 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=136)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Bibliographic relationships have taken on even greater importance in the context of ongoing efforts to integrate concepts from the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) into cataloging codes and database structures. In MARC 21, the linking entry fields are a major mechanism for expressing relationships between bibliographic records. Taxonomies of bibliographic relationships have been proposed by Tillett, with an extension by Smiraglia, and in FRBR itself. The present exercise is to provide a detailed bidirectional mapping of the MARC 21 linking fields to these two schemes. The correspondence of the Tillett taxonomic divisions to the MARC categorization of the linking fields as chronological, horizontal, or vertical is examined as well. Application of the findings to MARC format development and system functionality is discussed.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.084620714 = product of:
  0.12693107 = sum of:
    0.102897175 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.102897175 = score(doc=2862,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.52149844 = fieldWeight in 2862, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2862)
    0.024033897 = product of:
      0.048067793 = sum of:
        0.048067793 = weight(_text_:22 in 2862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048067793 = score(doc=2862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2862, 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=2862)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Paper presented at a symposium on 'Implementing the Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT): Controlled Vocabulary in the Extended MARC format', held at the 1989 Annual Conference of the Art Libraries Society of North America. The only way to get bibliographic records on to campus on-line library catalogues, and slide records on the national bibliographic utilities, is through the use of MARC. Discusses the importance of having individual slide and photograph records on the national bibliographic utilities, and considers the obstacles which currently make this difficult. Discusses mapping to MARC from data base management systems.

Date

4.12.1995 22:51:36

0.08232312 = product of:
  0.12348467 = sum of:
    0.09601736 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09601736 = score(doc=4414,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.4866305 = fieldWeight in 4414, 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=4414)
    0.02746731 = product of:
      0.05493462 = sum of:
        0.05493462 = weight(_text_:22 in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05493462 = score(doc=4414,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4414, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4414)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

It is helpful and essential to adopt standards for bibliographic information, project description and institutional information which are shareable for access to information resources within a country. Describes a strategy for adopting international standards of bibliographic information exchange for developing a resource sharing facilitation database in India. A list of 22 ISO standards for information processing is included

0.08232312 = product of:
  0.12348467 = sum of:
    0.09601736 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09601736 = score(doc=562,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.4866305 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
    0.02746731 = product of:
      0.05493462 = sum of:
        0.05493462 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05493462 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The paper performs a thought experiment on the concept of a record based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records and library system functions, and concludes that if we want to develop a functional bibliographic record we need to do it within the context of a flexible, functional library systems record structure. The article suggests a new way to look at the library systems record that would allow libraries to move forward in terms of technology but also in terms of serving library users.

Source

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

0.08162819 = product of:
  0.122442275 = sum of:
    0.10184179 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10184179 = score(doc=302,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = 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)
    0.020600483 = product of:
      0.041200966 = sum of:
        0.041200966 = weight(_text_:22 in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041200966 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

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

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.07739185 = product of:
  0.116087765 = sum of:
    0.08401519 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08401519 = score(doc=917,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 917, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=917)
    0.032072574 = product of:
      0.06414515 = sum of:
        0.06414515 = weight(_text_:searching in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06414515 = score(doc=917,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.31286204 = fieldWeight in 917, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=917)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Electronic documents are creating new services and generating new demands, with consequent impacts on the means of transmitting knowledge, international standards and democratisation of access. Universal bibliographic control depends on common rules for bibliographic description and format to ensure compatibility and exchange. In addition to ISBN and UNIMARC for cataloguing, Z39.50 allows searching of heterogeneous databases and SGML makes cataloguing in publication a reality. Such developments must be based on knowledge of what users want and their real search and consultation practices, not what the system devisers have the technology to create

0.07712558 = product of:
  0.11568836 = sum of:
    0.08819758 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08819758 = score(doc=131,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = 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)
    0.027490778 = product of:
      0.054981556 = sum of:
        0.054981556 = weight(_text_:searching in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054981556 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.26816747 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.07203273 = product of:
  0.10804909 = sum of:
    0.08401519 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08401519 = score(doc=7683,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 7683, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7683)
    0.024033897 = product of:
      0.048067793 = sum of:
        0.048067793 = weight(_text_:22 in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048067793 = score(doc=7683,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.07203273 = product of:
  0.10804909 = sum of:
    0.08401519 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08401519 = score(doc=2425,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 2425, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2425)
    0.024033897 = product of:
      0.048067793 = sum of:
        0.048067793 = weight(_text_:22 in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048067793 = score(doc=2425,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2425, 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=2425)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The FRBR model is by many considered to be an important contribution to the next generation of bibliographic catalogues, but a major challenge for the library community is how to use this model on already existing MARC-based bibliographic catalogues. This problem requires a solution for the interpretation and conversion of MARC records, and a tool for this kind of conversion is developed as a part of the Norwegian BIBSYS FRBR project. The tool is based on a systematic approach to the interpretation and conversion process and is designed to be adaptable to the rules applied in different catalogues.

Source

Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006

0.07115945 = product of:
  0.10673917 = sum of:
    0.067894526 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067894526 = score(doc=2408,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 2408, 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=2408)
    0.038844645 = product of:
      0.07768929 = sum of:
        0.07768929 = weight(_text_:22 in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07768929 = score(doc=2408,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2408, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2408)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

13. 1.2007 18:31:22

Footnote

Simultaneously published as Electronic Resources: Selection and Bibliographic Control

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.43-58

0.06859812 = product of:
  0.20579435 = sum of:
    0.20579435 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20579435 = score(doc=5539,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Towards a common bibliographic exchange format? International Symposium on Bibliographic Exchange Formats, Taormina, Sicily, 27-29 April 1978

0.06357456 = product of:
  0.095361836 = sum of:
    0.067894526 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067894526 = score(doc=4749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 4749, 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=4749)
    0.02746731 = product of:
      0.05493462 = sum of:
        0.05493462 = weight(_text_:22 in 4749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05493462 = score(doc=4749,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4749, 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=4749)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Describes the construction of the author's Perl program, Cyril, to add vernacular Russian (Cyrillic) characters to existing MARC records. The program takes advantage of the ALA-LC standards for Romanization to create character mappings that "de-transliterate" specified MARC fields. The creation of Cyril raises both linguistic and technical issues, which are thoroughly examined. Concludes by considering the implications for cataloging and authority control standards, as we move to a multilingual, multi-script bibliographic environment.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.8-17

0.06357456 = product of:
  0.095361836 = sum of:
    0.067894526 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067894526 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 484, 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=484)
    0.02746731 = product of:
      0.05493462 = sum of:
        0.05493462 = weight(_text_:22 in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05493462 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 484, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=484)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper discusses how archivists use the MARC AMC format to exchange information about archival materials. The paper explains the modifications that MARC AMC introduced to the MARC bibliographic formats; gives examples of a record in generic USMARC AMC, RLIN AMC, and OCLC AMC; and considers the possible impact of format integration. The paper concludes with some thoughts about the changes that MARC AMC is causing in the archival profession.

Date

8. 1.2007 14:22:51

0.06357456 = product of:
  0.095361836 = sum of:
    0.067894526 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067894526 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = 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)
    0.02746731 = product of:
      0.05493462 = sum of:
        0.05493462 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05493462 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper reviews library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2005-06. It covers pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of cataloging; Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (FRBR); metadata and its applications and relation to Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC); cataloging tools and standards; authority control; and recruitment, training, and the changing role of catalogers.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22