-
Carini, P.; Shepherd, K.: ¬The MARC standard and encoded archival description (2004)
0.15
0.14739981 = product of:
0.29479963 = sum of:
0.19027077 = weight(_text_:description in 2830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.19027077 = score(doc=2830,freq=8.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.8219003 = fieldWeight in 2830, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2830)
0.104528874 = sum of:
0.050559945 = weight(_text_:access in 2830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050559945 = score(doc=2830,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.29958594 = fieldWeight in 2830, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2830)
0.05396893 = weight(_text_:22 in 2830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05396893 = score(doc=2830,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2830, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2830)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This case study details the evolution of descriptive practices and standards used in the Mount Holyoke College Archives and the Five College Finding Aids Access Project, discusses the relationship of Encoded Archival Description (EAD) and the MARC standard in reference to archival description, and addresses the challenges and opportunities of transferring data from one metadata standard to another. The study demonstrates that greater standardization in archival description allows archivists to respond more effectively to technological change.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.18-27
-
McBride, J.L.: Faceted subject access for music through USMARC : a case for linked fields (2000)
0.13
0.13499425 = product of:
0.17999233 = sum of:
0.10090631 = weight(_text_:description in 5403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10090631 = score(doc=5403,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.43587846 = fieldWeight in 5403, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5403)
0.04116606 = weight(_text_:26 in 5403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04116606 = score(doc=5403,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 5403, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5403)
0.037919957 = product of:
0.075839914 = sum of:
0.075839914 = weight(_text_:access in 5403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.075839914 = score(doc=5403,freq=8.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.4493789 = fieldWeight in 5403, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5403)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- The USMARC Format for Bibliographic Description contains three fields (045, 047, and 048) designed to facilitate subject access to music materials. The fields cover three of the main aspects of subject description for music: date of composition, form or genre, and number of instruments or voices, respectively. The codes are rarely used for subject access, because of the difficulty of coding them and because false drops would result in retrieval of bibliographic records where more than one musical work is present, a situation that occurs frequently with sound recordings. It is proposed that the values of the fields be converted to natural language and that subfield 8 be used to link all access fields in a bibliographic record for greater precision in retrieval. This proposal has implications beyond music cataloging, especially for metadata and any bibliographic records describing materials containing many works and subjects.
- Date
- 27. 7.2006 19:26:55
-
Tosaka, Y.; Park, J.-r.: RDA: Resource description & access : a survey of the current state of the art (2013)
0.11
0.10555364 = product of:
0.14073819 = sum of:
0.08408859 = weight(_text_:description in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08408859 = score(doc=677,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.36323205 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03430505 = score(doc=677,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
0.02234455 = product of:
0.0446891 = sum of:
0.0446891 = weight(_text_:access in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0446891 = score(doc=677,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.26479906 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- Resource Description & Access (RDA) is intended to provide a flexible and extensible framework that can accommodate all types of content and media within rapidly evolving digital environments while also maintaining compatibility with the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2). The cataloging community is grappling with practical issues in navigating the transition from AACR2 to RDA; there is a definite need to evaluate major subject areas and broader themes in information organization under the new RDA paradigm. This article aims to accomplish this task through a thorough and critical review of the emerging RDA literature published from 2005 to 2011. The review mostly concerns key areas of difference between RDA and AACR2, the relationship of the new cataloging code to metadata standards, the impact on encoding standards such as Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), end user considerations, and practitioners' views on RDA implementation and training. Future research will require more in-depth studies of RDA's expected benefits and the manner in which the new cataloging code will improve resource retrieval and bibliographic control for users and catalogers alike over AACR2. The question as to how the cataloging community can best move forward to the post-AACR2/MARC environment must be addressed carefully so as to chart the future of bibliographic control in the evolving environment of information production, management, and use.
- Date
- 23. 3.2013 12:26:02
-
Gopinath, M.A.: Standardization for resource sharing databases (1995)
0.10
0.09983213 = product of:
0.19966426 = sum of:
0.09513538 = weight(_text_:description in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09513538 = score(doc=4414,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.41095015 = fieldWeight in 4414, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4414)
0.104528874 = sum of:
0.050559945 = weight(_text_:access in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050559945 = score(doc=4414,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.29958594 = fieldWeight in 4414, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4414)
0.05396893 = weight(_text_:22 in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05396893 = score(doc=4414,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = 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(2/4)
- 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
-
Aslanidi, M.; Papadakis, I.; Stefanidakis, M.: Name and title authorities in the music domain : alignment of UNIMARC authorities format with RDA (2018)
0.09
0.08735311 = product of:
0.17470622 = sum of:
0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 5178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08324346 = score(doc=5178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 5178, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5178)
0.09146276 = sum of:
0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 5178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044239953 = score(doc=5178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 5178, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5178)
0.04722281 = weight(_text_:22 in 5178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04722281 = score(doc=5178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5178, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5178)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This article discusses and highlights alignment issues that arise between UNIMARC Authorities Format and Resource Description and Access (RDA) regarding the creation of name and title authorities for musical works and creators. More specifically, RDA, as an implementation of the FRAD model, is compared with the UNIMARC Authorities Format (Updates 2012 and 2016) in an effort to highlight various cases where the discovery of equivalent fields between the two standards is not obvious. The study is envisioned as a first step in an ongoing process of working with the UNIMARC community throughout RDA's advancement and progression regarding the entities [musical] Work and Names.
- Date
- 19. 3.2019 12:17:22
-
Guenther, R.S.: Using the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) for resource description : guidelines and applications (2004)
0.08
0.08389666 = product of:
0.16779332 = sum of:
0.1441819 = weight(_text_:description in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1441819 = score(doc=2837,freq=6.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.6228132 = fieldWeight in 2837, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2837)
0.023611406 = product of:
0.04722281 = sum of:
0.04722281 = weight(_text_:22 in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04722281 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2837, 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=2837)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This paper describes the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS), its accompanying documentation and some of its applications. It reviews the MODS user guidelines provided by the Library of Congress and how they enable a user of the schema to consistently apply MODS as a metadata scheme. Because the schema itself could not fully document appropriate usage, the guidelines provide element definitions, history, relationships with other elements, usage conventions, and examples. Short descriptions of some MODS applications are given and a more detailed discussion of its use in the Library of Congress's Minerva project for Web archiving is given.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.89-98
-
McCallum, S.H.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) (2004)
0.08
0.08076311 = product of:
0.16152622 = sum of:
0.13454175 = weight(_text_:description in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13454175 = score(doc=81,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.5811713 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
0.026984464 = product of:
0.05396893 = sum of:
0.05396893 = weight(_text_:22 in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05396893 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 81, 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=81)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This paper provides an introduction to the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS), a MARC21 compatible XML schema for descriptive metadata. It explains the requirements that the schema targets and the special features that differentiate it from MARC, such as user-oriented tags, regrouped data elements, linking, recursion, and accommodations for electronic resources.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.82-88
-
Geißelmann, F.: Arbeitsergebnisse der Arbeitsgruppe Codes (2000)
0.07
0.07163848 = product of:
0.14327696 = sum of:
0.096054144 = weight(_text_:26 in 4973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.096054144 = score(doc=4973,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.5462547 = fieldWeight in 4973, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4973)
0.04722281 = product of:
0.09444562 = sum of:
0.09444562 = weight(_text_:22 in 4973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09444562 = score(doc=4973,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4973, 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=4973)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 26. 8.2000 19:22:35
-
Passin-Aguirre, N.; Leresche, F.: ¬Le format INTERMARC integre : futur format de travail de la BNF (1997)
0.07
0.06992201 = product of:
0.13984402 = sum of:
0.11772404 = weight(_text_:description in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11772404 = score(doc=915,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.5085249 = fieldWeight in 915, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=915)
0.022119977 = product of:
0.044239953 = sum of:
0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044239953 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 915, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=915)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- The French National Library (NBF) has developed 2 new versions of INTERMARC, (A) and (B), to standardise cataloguing procedures and enrich bibliographic description and access. The bibliographic description format (B) accords with existing ISBD and can be used for all types of documents, allowing inclusion of specific characteristics and addition of new links. The format for editing records (A) eliminates redundancies and enriches links between fields. Both will be used as reference formats in the new Information System
-
Wisser, K.M.; O'Brien Roper, J.: Maximizing metadata : exploring the EAD-MARC relationship (2003)
0.07
0.06893965 = product of:
0.1378793 = sum of:
0.05945961 = weight(_text_:description in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05945961 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.25684384 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
0.078419685 = sum of:
0.0446891 = weight(_text_:access in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0446891 = score(doc=154,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.26479906 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
0.03373058 = weight(_text_:22 in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03373058 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Encoded Archival Description (EAD) has provided a new way to approach manuscript and archival collection representation. A review of previous representational practices and problems highlights the benefits of using EAD. This new approach should be considered a partner rather than an adversary in the access providing process. Technological capabilities now allow for multiple metadata schemas to be employed in the creation of the finding aid. Crosswalks allow for MARC records to be generated from the detailed encoding of an EAD finding aid. In the process of creating these crosswalks and detailed encoding, EAD has generated more changes in traditional processes and procedures than originally imagined. The North Carolina State University (NCSU) Libraries sought to test the process of crosswalking EAD to MARC, investigating how this process used technology as well as changed physical procedures. By creating a complex and indepth EAD template for finding aids, with accompanying related encoding analogs embedded within the element structure, MARC records were generated that required minor editing and revision for inclusion in the NCSU Libraries OPAC. The creation of this bridge between EAD and MARC has stimulated theoretical discussions about the role of collaboration, technology, and expertise in the ongoing struggle to maximize access to our collections. While this study is a only a first attempt at harnessing this potential, a presentation of the tensions, struggles, and successes provides illumination to some of the larger issues facing special collections today.
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Witt, M.; Leresche, F.: IFLA study on functional requirements for bibliographic records : cataloguing practice in France (1995)
0.07
0.06544333 = product of:
0.13088666 = sum of:
0.09513538 = weight(_text_:description in 3081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09513538 = score(doc=3081,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.41095015 = fieldWeight in 3081, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3081)
0.03575128 = product of:
0.07150256 = sum of:
0.07150256 = weight(_text_:access in 3081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07150256 = score(doc=3081,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.4236785 = fieldWeight in 3081, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3081)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Discusses the French reaction. Covers the entities considered for cataloguing; elements for identifying a document; access points; and authority records. Considers whether it is possible to reduce redundancies among the elements contained in bibliographic records caused by overlapping between the ISBD description, the access points and the coded information; and whether OPACs can be developed to present clearly to users various entities from the most general level to the most specific level
-
Bierbaum, E.G.: ¬A modest proposal : no more main entry (1994)
0.06
0.057262912 = product of:
0.114525825 = sum of:
0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 8166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08324346 = score(doc=8166,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 8166, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8166)
0.03128237 = product of:
0.06256474 = sum of:
0.06256474 = weight(_text_:access in 8166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06256474 = score(doc=8166,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.3707187 = fieldWeight in 8166, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8166)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Discusses the origins of the concept of main entry and of confusion about what is meant by the term: a card in the catalogue, or a line above the the description serving as an access point. Examines the drawbacks of dual meaning: the full bibliographic record headed by the name of the author; and the author heading itself. Calls for change in the transfer to the electronic catalogue of terminology that was only descriptive and meaningful in the card catalogue. Proposes, in answer to the question of how the role of the entry can be transformed into uniform, collocative author-name access in the MARC record, that the 100/110 main entry MARC field be transformed into the primary field for the creator's authorized personal or corporate name
-
Heaney, M.: Object-oriented cataloging (1995)
0.06
0.057262912 = product of:
0.114525825 = sum of:
0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 3339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08324346 = score(doc=3339,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 3339, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3339)
0.03128237 = product of:
0.06256474 = sum of:
0.06256474 = weight(_text_:access in 3339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06256474 = score(doc=3339,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.3707187 = fieldWeight in 3339, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3339)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
Eden, B.L.: Metadata and librarianship : will MARC survive? (2004)
0.05
0.05342743 = product of:
0.10685486 = sum of:
0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08324346 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 4750, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4750)
0.023611406 = product of:
0.04722281 = sum of:
0.04722281 = weight(_text_:22 in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04722281 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = 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)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
Provansal, A.: Neuf mois après (1997)
0.05
0.052681718 = product of:
0.105363436 = sum of:
0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08324346 = score(doc=917,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 917, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=917)
0.022119977 = product of:
0.044239953 = sum of:
0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044239953 = score(doc=917,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 917, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=917)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
Katic, T.: Retrospective cataloguing of Croatian older books in UNIMARC (1997)
0.05
0.05145172 = product of:
0.10290344 = sum of:
0.07762347 = weight(_text_:26 in 1644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07762347 = score(doc=1644,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.44144046 = fieldWeight in 1644, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1644)
0.025279973 = product of:
0.050559945 = sum of:
0.050559945 = weight(_text_:access in 1644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050559945 = score(doc=1644,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.29958594 = fieldWeight in 1644, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1644)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Describes the background to proposals made by the National and University Library of Zagreb, Croatia, based on experiences in automating the cataloguing of its rare and older books, which led to the incorporation of new fields in the 1996 update of the UNIMARC manual: bilbiographic format and the UNIMARC guideline no.3: older monographs (antiquarian). Explains these additions as they apply to ideal or perfect copy and copy in hand, bound items in artificial collections and access points which gather bibliographic items by various characteristics
- Date
- 1. 7.1996 21:26:02
- Source
- International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 26(1997) no.4, S.82-84
-
Dierickx, H. (Bearb.); Hopkinson, A. (Bearb.): UNISIST reference manual for machine-readable bibliographic description (1986)
0.05
0.04756769 = product of:
0.19027077 = sum of:
0.19027077 = weight(_text_:description in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.19027077 = score(doc=2033,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.8219003 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Fattahi, R.: ¬A uniform approach to the indexing of cataloguing data in online library systems (1997)
0.05
0.045155756 = product of:
0.09031151 = sum of:
0.071351536 = weight(_text_:description in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.071351536 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.3082126 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
0.018959979 = product of:
0.037919957 = sum of:
0.037919957 = weight(_text_:access in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037919957 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
Leazer, G.H.: ¬An examination of data elements for bibliographic description : toward a conceptual schema for the USMARC formats (1992)
0.04
0.04162173 = product of:
0.16648692 = sum of:
0.16648692 = weight(_text_:description in 4822) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.16648692 = score(doc=4822,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.71916276 = fieldWeight in 4822, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4822)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Standards for the international exchange of bibliographic information : papers presented at a course held at the School of Library, Archive and Information Studies, University College London, 3-18 August 1990 (1991)
0.04
0.03995543 = product of:
0.07991086 = sum of:
0.067270875 = weight(_text_:description in 7884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.067270875 = score(doc=7884,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.29058564 = fieldWeight in 7884, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7884)
0.012639986 = product of:
0.025279973 = sum of:
0.025279973 = weight(_text_:access in 7884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025279973 = score(doc=7884,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.14979297 = fieldWeight in 7884, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7884)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- 31 papers consider the major international bodies concerned with standards and the problems associated with special forms and different scripts. The creation of bibliographic records including the role of national bibliographic agencies is considered. Standards for subject access and the impact of automation are also covered
- Content
- Enthält u.a. die Beiträge: TEMPLETON, R.: The Library Association's role in developing standards; HARRISON, H.P.: Special materials and problems: standards for audiovisual materials; ANDERSON, D.: Selections of bibliographic standards and the processes of standardization; GILCHRIST, A.: The standards jungle; BOURNE, R.: The IFLA UBCIM programme: standards in the changing world; ROBERTS, W.: The role of IFLA in framing and promoting bibliographic standards; HILL, M.W.: Standards for information handling: needs and dilemmas; JUSU-SHERIFF, G.: Standardization: an African viewpoint; BISWAS, S.C.: Standardization of bibliographic control in South Asia; CROUCHER, M.: The British National Bibliography: an historical perspective; BUCKLEY, B.J.: CD-ROM at the British Library; HOPKINSON, A.: Information transfer and exchange formats; HESELTINE, R.G.: Library automation in the 1990s: the open systems future; GRAVES, S.E.: Problems of serials control; ODDY, P.: Authority control in the local, national and international environment; MITCHELL, J.: Library co-operatives: bibliographic databases; BROWN, S.: Angl-American cataloguing rules; MORELELI-CACOURIS, M. u. M. SKEPASTIANU: Cataloguing practices in Greece; MUN, K.S.: Bibliographic description and information exchange in Southeast Asia: a survey; CURWEN, A.G.: International standard bibliographic description; HANCOCK-BEAULIEU, M.: Bibliographic standards and the online catalogue user; WILLIAMSON, N.J.: Subject cataloguing and LCSH; AITCHISON, J.: Subject control: thesaurus construction standards; SWEENEY, R.: Dewey Decimal Classification: an international standard; McILWAINE, I.C.: Present role and future policy for UDC as a standard for subject control; BUXTON, A.B.: UDC in online systems; BUXTON, A.B.: International gateways; BUXTON, A.B.: Common command languages
