Search (84 results, page 1 of 5)

0.09428251 = product of:
  0.14142376 = sum of:
    0.101712465 = weight(_text_:electronic in 5508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.101712465 = score(doc=5508,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.518332 = fieldWeight in 5508, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5508)
    0.0397113 = product of:
      0.0794226 = sum of:
        0.0794226 = weight(_text_:publishing in 5508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0794226 = score(doc=5508,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.32387543 = fieldWeight in 5508, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5508)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Changes in the environment in which the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition (AACR2), currently operates are examined, including the growth in electronic publishing and use of the Internet, and the development and increasing use of a range of other metadata standards, such as the Dublin Core. AACR2 and other metadata standards, particularly the Dublin Core, are compared. It is argued that AACR2 should continue to be used for describing selected Web-based resources. Criteria for deciding whether to use AACR2 or another metadata standard are defined, drawing on the experiences of two Brisbane universities in developing mechanisms for providing access to electronic resources. Five options are evaluated: catalog only (direct entry); catalog only (indirect entry); subject gateway only; catalog and subject gateway combined; and shared databases, such as CORC. The option chosen by the two universities is identified and explained. Revisions to the rules in AACR2 for cataloging electronic resources resulting from decisions made through 2000 are described. Possible future revisions are also explored.

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Electronic cataloging: AACR2 and metadata for serials and monographs"

0.07115658 = product of:
  0.106734864 = sum of:
    0.05993465 = weight(_text_:electronic in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05993465 = score(doc=1187,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.30543008 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
    0.046800215 = product of:
      0.09360043 = sum of:
        0.09360043 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09360043 = score(doc=1187,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.38169086 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In June of this year, I performed my final official duties as part of the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative management team. It is a happy irony to affix a seal on that service in this journal, as both D-Lib Magazine and the Dublin Core celebrate their tenth anniversaries. This essay is a personal reflection on some of the achievements and lessons of that decade. The OCLC-NCSA Metadata Workshop took place in March of 1995, and as we tried to understand what it meant and who would care, D-Lib magazine came into being and offered a natural venue for sharing our work. I recall a certain skepticism when Bill Arms said "We want D-Lib to be the first place people look for the latest developments in digital library research." These were the early days in the evolution of electronic publishing, and the goal was ambitious. By any measure, a decade of high-quality electronic publishing is an auspicious accomplishment, and D-Lib (and its host, CNRI) deserve congratulations for having achieved their goal. I am grateful to have been a contributor. That first DC workshop led to further workshops, a community, a variety of standards in several countries, an ISO standard, a conference series, and an international consortium. Looking back on this evolution is both satisfying and wistful. While I am pleased that the achievements are substantial, the unmet challenges also provide a rich till in which to cultivate insights on the development of digital infrastructure.

0.06334015 = product of:
  0.09501022 = sum of:
    0.06780831 = weight(_text_:electronic in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06780831 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.34555468 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
    0.02720191 = product of:
      0.05440382 = sum of:
        0.05440382 = weight(_text_:22 in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05440382 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.06334015 = product of:
  0.09501022 = sum of:
    0.06780831 = weight(_text_:electronic in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06780831 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.34555468 = fieldWeight in 4869, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4869)
    0.02720191 = product of:
      0.05440382 = sum of:
        0.05440382 = weight(_text_:22 in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05440382 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4869, 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=4869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:39:23

0.06334015 = product of:
  0.09501022 = sum of:
    0.06780831 = weight(_text_:electronic in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06780831 = score(doc=126,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.34555468 = fieldWeight in 126, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=126)
    0.02720191 = product of:
      0.05440382 = sum of:
        0.05440382 = weight(_text_:22 in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05440382 = score(doc=126,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 126, 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=126)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

As libraries attempt to incorporate increasing amounts of electronic resources into their catalogs, utilizing a growing variety of metadata standards, library and information science programs are grappling with how to educate catalogers to meet these challenges. In this paper, an employer considers the characteristics and skills that catalogers will need and how they might acquire them.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.06334015 = product of:
  0.09501022 = sum of:
    0.06780831 = weight(_text_:electronic in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06780831 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.34555468 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
    0.02720191 = product of:
      0.05440382 = sum of:
        0.05440382 = weight(_text_:22 in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05440382 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article is a survey of representative metadata efforts comparing them to MARC 21 metadata in order to determine if new electronic formats require the development of a new set of standards. This study surveys the ongoing metadata projects in order to identify what types of metadata exist and how they are used and also compares and analyzes selected metadata elements in an attempt to illustrate how they are related to MARC 21 metadata format elements.

Date

23. 1.2007 11:22:30

0.039587595 = product of:
  0.059381388 = sum of:
    0.042380195 = weight(_text_:electronic in 124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042380195 = score(doc=124,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.21597168 = fieldWeight in 124, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=124)
    0.017001195 = product of:
      0.03400239 = sum of:
        0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03400239 = score(doc=124,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 124, 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=124)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Cornell University Library (CUL) has developed a largely automated method for providing title-level catalog access to electronic journals made available through aggregator packages. CUL's technique for automated e-journal record creation and maintenance relies largely on the conversion of externally supplied metadata into streamlined, abbreviated-level MARC records. Unlike the Cooperative Online Serials Cataloging Program's recently implemented aggregator-neutral approach to e-journal cataloging, CUL's method involves the creation of a separate bibliographic record for each version of an e-journal title in order to facilitate automated record maintenance. An indexed local field indicates the aggregation to which each title belongs and enables machine manipulation of all the records associated with a specific aggregation. Information encoded in another locally defined field facilitates the identification of all of the library's e-journal titles and allows for the automatic generation of a Web-based title list of e-journals. CUL's approach to providing title-level catalog access to its e-journal aggregations involves a number of tradeoffs in which some elements of traditional bibliographic description (such as subject headings and linking fields) are sacrificed in the interest of timeliness and affordability. URLs (Uniform Resource Locators) and holdings information are updated on a regular basis by use of automated methods that save on staff costs.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.03955485 = product of:
  0.11866455 = sum of:
    0.11866455 = weight(_text_:electronic in 4897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11866455 = score(doc=4897,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.6047207 = fieldWeight in 4897, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4897)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.034255505 = product of:
  0.102766514 = sum of:
    0.102766514 = weight(_text_:electronic in 2984) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.102766514 = score(doc=2984,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.5237035 = fieldWeight in 2984, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2984)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In July 2005, the Oregon State University Libraries began accepting electronic versions of student theses and dissertations into ScholarsArchive@OSU, the library's institutional repository. By January 2007, all Oregon State University graduate students were required to deposit their final research. This paper compares past processes and workflows for print theses and dissertations with the present workflow for electronic. We provide the rationale for changes and review the cost- and time-savings produced. We describe the changing roles of students, technicians and librarians in the metadata process as well as the value of students describing their own work.

0.033904158 = product of:
  0.101712465 = sum of:
    0.101712465 = weight(_text_:electronic in 5405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.101712465 = score(doc=5405,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.518332 = fieldWeight in 5405, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5405)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.033904158 = product of:
  0.101712465 = sum of:
    0.101712465 = weight(_text_:electronic in 1107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.101712465 = score(doc=1107,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.518332 = fieldWeight in 1107, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1107)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.028253464 = product of:
  0.08476039 = sum of:
    0.08476039 = weight(_text_:electronic in 1760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08476039 = score(doc=1760,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.43194336 = fieldWeight in 1760, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1760)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Library of Congress (LC) has many of the same challenges as other libraries, especially large ones. LC has many different types of resources - books, journals, maps, music, manuscripts, audio, moving image, still image, artifacts, electronic - with large collections of each. Different levels of access are needed for this material: for some, collection level bibliographic description is adequate; for many, item level access is adequate; but for others, such as sound recordings, analytic, or sub unit access is highly desirable.The sizes of the LC collections are a major challenge - over 125 million non-electronic and over 3 million electronic items (and growing rapidly). And finally, electronic resources are presenting us with new issues - from metadata to preservation to storage to linking techniques. LC has tried to approach these challenges from a service perspective. Access must be successful for the end user, which mandates as much coherence and consistency in the metadata as possible and access systems that are easy to use. This paper focuses an the Library of Congress' perspective an metadata in the following three areas: (1) descriptive metadata in our current operations, (2) pathways that are developing that will support possible evolution in the future, and (3) broader metadata needs with digital material. The discussion is from a metadata element set and format point of view, not a cataloging data and cataloging rules view. Most acronyms used in this paper are expanded in an Appendix.

0.027969502 = product of:
  0.083908506 = sum of:
    0.083908506 = weight(_text_:electronic in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083908506 = score(doc=5509,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.4276021 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Discusses the development and implications of electronic resource description systems, including the familiar library standard, the MARC Format, and the newly developing Resource Description Format (RDF), as well as other non-library markup languages such as XML, HTML, SGML, etc. Explains the differences between content and container, and the kinds of rules needed for describing each. Closes by outlining clearly why it is important for librarians to reach out beyond the library community and participate in the development of metadata standards.

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Electronic cataloging: AACR2 and metadata for serials and monographs"

0.02768263 = product of:
  0.08304789 = sum of:
    0.08304789 = weight(_text_:electronic in 5732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08304789 = score(doc=5732,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.42321634 = fieldWeight in 5732, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5732)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The speed with change takes place is startling and has left the information community with little time to consider how the development of electronic resources and the metadata schemas created to describe them effect how we view a work and its components. In terms of the attribution of authorship in the context of electronic works, this is a salient point. How does one determine authorship of a complex electronic resource, which is the culmination of the work of a myriad of entities? How does one determine the authorship when the content of the electronic resource may change at any moment without warning? What is the semantic content of the element that denotes authorship or responsibility for an electronic resource and how does the term used determine the element's meaning? The conceptual difficulty in the definition of the Creator element is deciphering what exactly the metadata schema should be describing. We also need to establish what purpose the element is intended to serve. In essence, we are at a crossroads. It is clear that once a work is digitized it exists in a significantly different medium, but how do we provide access to it? It is necessary to critically assess the accuracy of digital surrogates and to note that webmasters have a significant amount of intellectual responsibility invested in the sites they create. The solution to the problem in the Creator element may lie in moving from the concept of "authorship" and "origination" to a concept of intellectual responsibility. Perhaps the problematic nature of the Creator element allows us to move forward in our assessment and treatment of knowledge. One solution may be to standardize the definitions within various element sets. As the semantic web continues to grow and librarians strive to catalog electronic resources, the establishment of standard definitions for elements is becoming more relevant and important.

0.026716769 = product of:
  0.080150306 = sum of:
    0.080150306 = sum of:
      0.052948397 = weight(_text_:publishing in 5650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052948397 = score(doc=5650,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = queryNorm
          0.21591695 = fieldWeight in 5650, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5650)
      0.02720191 = weight(_text_:22 in 5650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02720191 = score(doc=5650,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5650, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5650)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

11. 3.2001 17:10:22

0.026163075 = product of:
  0.07848922 = sum of:
    0.07848922 = weight(_text_:electronic in 3082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07848922 = score(doc=3082,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.39998516 = fieldWeight in 3082, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3082)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Electronic Cataloging is the undertaking of three pioneers in library science: Sheila S. Intner, Sally C. Tseng, and Mary L. Larsgaard, who co-edited Maps and Related Cartographic Materials: Cataloging Classification, and Bibliographic Control (Haworth, 2000). With illustrations, references, additional reading lists, and case studies, this research tool offers you tips and strategies to make metadata work for you and your library. No one currently involved in information cataloging should be without this book! For a complete list of contents, visit our Web site at www.HaworthPress.com. Electronic Cataloging: AACR2 and Metadata for Serials and Monographs is a collection of papers about recent developments in metadata and its practical applications in cataloging. Acknowledged experts examine a wide variety of techniques for managing serials and monographs using standards and schemas like MARC, AACR2, ISSN, ISBD, and Dublin Core. From the broadest introduction of metadata usage to the revisions of AACR2 through 2000, this book offers vital analysis and strategy for achieving Universal Bibliographic Control. Electronic Cataloging is divided into three parts. The first is an introduction to metadata, what it is, and its relationship to the library in general. The second portion focuses in more an how metadata can be utilized by a library system and the possibilities in the near future. The third portion is very specific, dealing with individual standards of metadata and elements, such as AACR2 and MARC, as well as current policies and prospects for the future. Information covered in Electronic Cataloging includes: an overview of metadata and seriality and why it is important to the cataloging community Universal Bibliographic Control: what has succeeded so far in cataloging and how metadata will evolve the step-by-step process for creating an effective metadata repository for the community the inherent problems that accompany cataloging nonprint research materials, such as electronic serials and the Web metadata schemas and the use of controlled vocabularies and classification systems standards of metadata, including MARC, Dublin Core, RDF, and AACR2, with emphasis an the revisions and efforts made with AACR2 through 2000 an overview of the ISSN (International Serials Standard Number) and its relationships to current codes and metadata standards, including AACR2 and much more!

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: Editors' Introduction (Sheila S. Intner, Sally C. Tseng, and Mary Lynette Larsgaard) PART 1. Cataloging in an Electronic Age (Michael Gorman) Why Metadata? Why Me? Why Now? (Brian E. C. Schottlaender) PART 2. Developing a Metadata Strategy (Grace Agnew) Practical Issues in Applying Metadata Schemas and Controlled Vocabularies to Cultural Heritage Information (Murtha Baca) Digital Resources and Metadata Application in the Shanghai Library (Yuanliang Ma and Wei Liu) Struggling Toward Retrieval: Alternatives to Standard Operating Procedures Can Help Librarians and the Public (Sheila S. Intner) PART 3. AACR2 and Other Metadata Standards: The Way Forward (Ann Huthwaite) AACR2 and Metadata: Library Opportunities in the Global Semantic Web (Barbara B. Tillett) Seriality: What Have We Accomplished? What's Next? (Jean Hirons) MARC and Mark-Up (Erik Jul) ISSN: Dumb Number, Smart Solution (Regina Romano Reynolds) Index Reference Notes Included

0.024468219 = product of:
  0.073404655 = sum of:
    0.073404655 = weight(_text_:electronic in 4264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073404655 = score(doc=4264,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.37407395 = fieldWeight in 4264, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4264)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Metadata is of paramount importance for persons, organizations, and endeavors of every dimension that are increasingly turning to the World Wide Web (hereafter referred to as the Web) as a chief conduit for accessing and disseminating information. This is evidenced by the development and implementation of metadata schemas supporting projects ranging from restricted corporate intranets, data warehouses, and consumer-oriented electronic commerce enterprises to freely accessible digital libraries, educational initiatives, virtual museums, and other public Web sites. Today's metadata activities are unprecedented because they extend beyond the traditional library environment in an effort to deal with the Web's exponential growth. This article considers metadata in today's Web environment. The article defines metadata, examines the relationship between metadata and cataloging, provides definitions for key metadata vocabulary terms, and explores the topic of metadata generation. Metadata is an extensive and expanding subject that is prevalent in many environments. For practical reasons, this article has elected to concentrate an the information resource domain, which is defined by electronic textual documents, graphical images, archival materials, museum artifacts, and other objects found in both digital and physical information centers (e.g., libraries, museums, record centers, and archives). To show the extent and larger application of metadata, several examples are also drawn from the data warehouse, electronic commerce, open source, and medical communities.

0.02397386 = product of:
  0.07192158 = sum of:
    0.07192158 = weight(_text_:electronic in 3598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07192158 = score(doc=3598,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.3665161 = fieldWeight in 3598, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3598)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

As a form of grey literature, scientific laboratory notebooks are intended to meet two broad functions: to record daily in-house activities as well as to manage research results. A major goal of this scientific electronic notebook project is to provide high quality resource discovery and retrieval capabilities for primary data objects produced in a multidisciplinary, biotechnology research laboratory study. This paper discusses a prototype modified relational database that incorporates Dublin Core metadata to organize and describe the laboratory data early in the scientific process. The study investigates the effectiveness of this approach to Support daily in-house tasks as well as to capture, integrate, and exchange research results.

0.02397386 = product of:
  0.07192158 = sum of:
    0.07192158 = weight(_text_:electronic in 5510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07192158 = score(doc=5510,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.3665161 = fieldWeight in 5510, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5510)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Explores the opportunities for libraries to contribute to the proposed global "Semantic Web." Library name and subject authority files, including work that IFLA has done related to a new view of "Universal Bibliographic Control" in the Internet environment and the work underway in the U.S. and Europe, are making a reality of the virtual international authority file on the Web. The bibliographic and authority records created according to AACR2 reflect standards for metadata that libraries have provided for years. New opportunities for using these records in the digital world are described (interoperability), including mapping with Dublin Core metadata. AACR2 recently updated Chapter 9 on Electronic Resources. That process and highlights of the changes are described, including Library of Congress' rule interpretations.

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Electronic cataloging: AACR2 and metadata for serials and monographs"

0.02260277 = product of:
  0.06780831 = sum of:
    0.06780831 = weight(_text_:electronic in 5504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06780831 = score(doc=5504,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.34555468 = fieldWeight in 5504, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5504)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Electronic cataloging: AACR2 and metadata for serials and monographs"