-
Smith, J.K.; Cunningham, R.L.; Sarapata, S.P.: MARC to ENC MARC : bringing the collection forward (2004)
0.04
0.04143908 = product of:
0.12431723 = sum of:
0.077719584 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.077719584 = score(doc=2844,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.52793854 = fieldWeight in 2844, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2844)
0.028884713 = weight(_text_:data in 2844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028884713 = score(doc=2844,freq=2.0), product of:
0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 2844, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2844)
0.017712934 = product of:
0.035425868 = sum of:
0.035425868 = weight(_text_:22 in 2844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035425868 = score(doc=2844,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13080442 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2844, 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=2844)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- This paper will describe the way in which the USMARC cataloging schema is used at the Eisenhower National Clearing-house (ENC). Discussion will include how ENC MARC extensions were developed for cataloging mathematics and science curriculum resources, and how the ENC workflow is integrated into the cataloging interface. The discussion will conclude with a historical look at the in-house data transfer from ENC MARC to the current production of IEEE LOM XML encoding for record sharing and OAI compliance, required under the NSDL project guidelines.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.28-39
-
Caplan, P.; Guenther, R.: Metadata for Internet resources : the Dublin Core Metadata Elements Set and its mapping to USMARC (1996)
0.04
0.037640385 = product of:
0.11292115 = sum of:
0.051281624 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051281624 = score(doc=2408,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.3483491 = fieldWeight in 2408, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2408)
0.0330111 = weight(_text_:data in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0330111 = score(doc=2408,freq=2.0), product of:
0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 2408, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2408)
0.028628424 = product of:
0.057256848 = sum of:
0.057256848 = weight(_text_:22 in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057256848 = score(doc=2408,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13080442 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- This paper discuesses the goals and outcome of the OCLC/NCSA Metadata Workshop held March 1-3, 1995 in Dublin Ohio. The resulting proposed "Dublin Core" Metadata Elements Set is described briefly. An attempt is made to map the Dublin Core data elements to USMARC; problems and outstanding questions are noted.
- Date
- 13. 1.2007 18:31:22
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.43-58
-
Lee, S.; Jacob, E.K.: ¬An integrated approach to metadata interoperability : construction of a conceptual structure between MARC and FRBR (2011)
0.04
0.036335014 = product of:
0.109005034 = sum of:
0.038461216 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038461216 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.26126182 = fieldWeight in 302, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=302)
0.0553613 = weight(_text_:data in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0553613 = score(doc=302,freq=10.0), product of:
0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.46871632 = fieldWeight in 302, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=302)
0.015182514 = product of:
0.030365027 = sum of:
0.030365027 = weight(_text_:22 in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030365027 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13080442 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- 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
-
Zapounidou, S.; Sfakakis, M.; Papatheodorou, C.: Library data integration : towards BIBFRAME mapping to EDM (2014)
0.04
0.035131108 = product of:
0.15808998 = sum of:
0.08806286 = weight(_text_:germany in 1589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08806286 = score(doc=1589,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22275731 = queryWeight, product of:
5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.39533097 = fieldWeight in 1589, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1589)
0.07002712 = weight(_text_:data in 1589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07002712 = score(doc=1589,freq=16.0), product of:
0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.5928845 = fieldWeight in 1589, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1589)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- Integration of library data into the Linked Data environment is a key issue in libraries and is approached on the basis of interoperability between library data conceptual models. Achieving interoperability for different representations of the same or related entities between the library and cultural heritage domains shall enhance rich bibliographic data reusability and support the development of new data-driven information services. This paper aims to contribute to the desired interoperability by attempting to map core semantic paths between the BIBFRAME and EDM conceptual models. BIBFRAME is developed by the Library of Congress to support transformation of legacy library data in MARC format into linked data. EDM is the model developed for and used in the Europeana Cultural Heritage aggregation portal.
- Source
- Metadata and semantics research: 8th Research Conference, MTSR 2014, Karlsruhe, Germany, November 27-29, 2014, Proceedings. Eds.: S. Closs et al
-
Carvalho, J.R. de; Cordeiro, M.I.; Lopes, A.; Vieira, M.: Meta-information about MARC : an XML framework for validation, explanation and help systems (2004)
0.03
0.031313088 = product of:
0.09393926 = sum of:
0.028884713 = weight(_text_:data in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028884713 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
0.047341615 = weight(_text_:processing in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047341615 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15121111 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.3130829 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
0.017712934 = product of:
0.035425868 = sum of:
0.035425868 = weight(_text_:22 in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035425868 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13080442 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- This article proposes a schema for meta-information about MARC that can express at a fairly comprehensive level the syntactic and semantic aspects of MARC formats in XML, including not only rules but also all texts and examples that are conveyed by MARC documentation. It can be thought of as an XML version of the MARC or UNIMARC manuals, for both machine and human usage. The article explains how such a schema can be the central piece of a more complete framework, to be used in conjunction with "slim" record formats, providing a rich environment for the automated processing of bibliographic data.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.131-137
-
Shieh, J.: PCC's work on URIs in MARC (2020)
0.03
0.03078786 = product of:
0.13854536 = sum of:
0.07252317 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07252317 = score(doc=122,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.49264002 = fieldWeight in 122, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=122)
0.0660222 = weight(_text_:data in 122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0660222 = score(doc=122,freq=8.0), product of:
0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.5589768 = fieldWeight in 122, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=122)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- In 2015, the PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC was tasked to identify and address linked data identifiers deployment in the current MARC format. By way of a pilot test, a survey, MARC Discussion papers, Proposals, etc., the Task Group initiated and introduced changes to MARC encoding. The Task Group succeeded in laying the ground work for preparing library data transition from MARC data to a linked data, RDF environment.
- Footnote
- Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC): 25 Years Strong and Growing!'.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 58(2020) no.3/4, S.418-427
-
El-Sherbini, M.A.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2005-06 (2008)
0.03
0.029980566 = product of:
0.13491255 = sum of:
0.1146692 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1146692 = score(doc=249,freq=10.0), product of:
0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.7789323 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
0.020243352 = product of:
0.040486705 = sum of:
0.040486705 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040486705 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13080442 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = 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)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- This paper reviews library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2005-06. It covers pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of cataloging; Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (FRBR); metadata and its applications and relation to Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC); cataloging tools and standards; authority control; and recruitment, training, and the changing role of catalogers.
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Guenther, R.S.: Automating the Library of Congress Classification Scheme : implementation of the USMARC format for classification data (1996)
0.03
0.029824575 = product of:
0.13421059 = sum of:
0.06345777 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06345777 = score(doc=5578,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.43106002 = fieldWeight in 5578, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5578)
0.07075281 = weight(_text_:data in 5578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07075281 = score(doc=5578,freq=12.0), product of:
0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.59902847 = fieldWeight in 5578, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5578)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- Potential uses for classification data in machine readable form and reasons for the development of a standard, the USMARC Format for Classification Data, which allows for classification data to interact with other USMARC bibliographic and authority data are discussed. The development, structure, content, and use of the standard is reviewed with implementation decisions for the Library of Congress Classification scheme noted. The author examines the implementation of USMARC classification at LC, the conversion of the schedules, and the functionality of the software being used. Problems in the effort are explored, and enhancements desired for the online classification system are considered.
- Footnote
- Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Cataloging and Classification Standards and Rules"
- Object
- USMARC for classification data
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 21(1996) nos.3/4, S.177-203
-
Samples, J.; Bigelow, I.: MARC to BIBFRAME : converting the PCC to Linked Data (2020)
0.03
0.028388752 = product of:
0.12774938 = sum of:
0.077719584 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.077719584 = score(doc=119,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.52793854 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
0.050029792 = weight(_text_:data in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050029792 = score(doc=119,freq=6.0), product of:
0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.42357713 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- The Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) has formal relationships with the Library of Congress (LC), Share-VDE, and Linked Data for Production Phase 2 (LD4P2) for work on Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME), and PCC institutions have been very active in the exploration of MARC to BIBFRAME conversion processes. This article will review the involvement of PCC in the development of BIBFRAME and examine the work of LC, Share-VDE, and LD4P2 on MARC to BIBFRAME conversion. It will conclude with a discussion of areas for further exploration by the PCC leading up to the creation of PCC conversion specifications and PCC BIBFRAME data.
- Footnote
- Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC): 25 Years Strong and Growing!'.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 58(2020) no.3/4, S.403-417
-
Kurth, M.; Ruddy, D.; Rupp, N.: Repurposing MARC metadata : using digital project experience to develop a metadata management design (2004)
0.03
0.026839789 = product of:
0.08051936 = sum of:
0.024758326 = weight(_text_:data in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024758326 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
0.040578526 = weight(_text_:processing in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040578526 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15121111 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
0.015182514 = product of:
0.030365027 = sum of:
0.030365027 = weight(_text_:22 in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030365027 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13080442 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4748, 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=4748)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Metadata and information technology staff in libraries that are building digital collections typically extract and manipulate MARC metadata sets to provide access to digital content via non-MARC schemes. Metadata processing in these libraries involves defining the relationships between metadata schemes, moving metadata between schemes, and coordinating the intellectual activity and physical resources required to create and manipulate metadata. Actively managing the non-MARC metadata resources used to build digital collections is something most of these libraries have only begun to do. This article proposes strategies for managing MARC metadata repurposing efforts as the first step in a coordinated approach to library metadata management. Guided by lessons learned from Cornell University library mapping and transformation activities, the authors apply the literature of data resource management to library metadata management and propose a model for managing MARC metadata repurposing processes through the implementation of a metadata management design.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.144-152
-
McCallum, S.H.: Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC): 1975-2007 (2009)
0.03
0.02613402 = product of:
0.07840206 = sum of:
0.038461216 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038461216 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.26126182 = fieldWeight in 3841, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3841)
0.024758326 = weight(_text_:data in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024758326 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 3841, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3841)
0.015182514 = product of:
0.030365027 = sum of:
0.030365027 = weight(_text_:22 in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030365027 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13080442 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3841, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3841)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- This entry describes the development of the MARC Communications format. After a brief overview of the initial 10 years it describes the succeeding phases of development up to the present. This takes the reader through the expansion of the format for all types of bibliographic data and for a multiple character scripts. At the same time a large business community was developing that offered products based on the format to the library community. The introduction of the Internet in the 1990s and the Web technology brought new opportunities and challenges and the format was adapted to this new environment. There has been a great deal of international adoption of the format that has continued into the 2000s. More recently new syntaxes for MARC 21 and models are being explored.
- Date
- 27. 8.2011 14:22:38
-
Spicher, K.M.: ¬The development of the MARC format (1996)
0.03
0.02521946 = product of:
0.113487564 = sum of:
0.06345777 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06345777 = score(doc=5574,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.43106002 = fieldWeight in 5574, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5574)
0.050029792 = weight(_text_:data in 5574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050029792 = score(doc=5574,freq=6.0), product of:
0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.42357713 = fieldWeight in 5574, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5574)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- The use of computerized cataloguing data requires a commitment on the part of libraries to the standardization of data elements and record formats. Early computerized formats were initiated by several research libraries to serve the needs of particular university systems. In developing MARC, the LoC drew on the experiences of these libraries in establishing a standard acceptable to the research library community for the interchange of bibliographic data. Discusses early computerized formats influencing MARC, the origins of the MARC Pilot Project, and design factors influencing the evolution of the format through MARC2. Research was based on primary sources documenting the early history of MARC, including unpublished documents in the LoC archives
- Footnote
- Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Cataloging and Classification Standards and Rules"
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 21(1996) nos.3/4, S.75-90
-
Maxwell, R.L.: Bibliographic control (2009)
0.02
0.024613382 = product of:
0.11076022 = sum of:
0.086001895 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 3750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.086001895 = score(doc=3750,freq=10.0), product of:
0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.5841992 = fieldWeight in 3750, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3750)
0.024758326 = weight(_text_:data in 3750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024758326 = score(doc=3750,freq=2.0), product of:
0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 3750, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3750)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- Bibliographic control is the process of creation, exchange, preservation, and use of data about information resources. Formal bibliographic control has been practiced for millennia, but modern techniques began to be developed and implemented in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. A series of cataloging codes characterized this period. These codes governed the creation of library catalogs, first in book form, then on cards, and finally in electronic formats, including MAchine-Readable Cataloging (MARC). The period was also characterized by the rise of shared cataloging programs, allowing the development of resource-saving copy cataloging procedures. Such programs were assisted by the development of cataloging networks such as OCLC and RLG. The twentieth century saw progress in the theory of bibliographic control, including the 1961 Paris Principles, culminating with the early twenty-first century Statement of International Cataloguing Principles and IFLA's Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). Toward the end of the period bibliographic control began to be applied to newly invented electronic media, as "metadata." Trends point toward continued development of collaborative and international approaches to bibliographic control.
-
Yee, M.M.: New perspectives on the shared cataloging environment and a MARC 21 shopping list (2004)
0.02
0.02423683 = product of:
0.109065734 = sum of:
0.08882238 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08882238 = score(doc=132,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.6033583 = fieldWeight in 132, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=132)
0.020243352 = product of:
0.040486705 = sum of:
0.040486705 = weight(_text_:22 in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040486705 = score(doc=132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13080442 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 132, 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=132)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- This paper surveys the cataloging literature to collect problems that have been identified with the MARC 21 format. The problems are sorted into (1) problems that are not the fault of MARC 21; (2) problems that perhaps are not problems at all; (3) problems that are connected with the current shared cataloging environment; and 4) other problems with MARC 21 and vendor implementation of it. The author makes recommendations to deal with the true MARC 21 problems that remain after this analysis.
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Aliprand, J.M.: Linking of alternate graphic representation in USMARC authority records (1993)
0.02
0.024101896 = product of:
0.108458534 = sum of:
0.051281624 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 8341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051281624 = score(doc=8341,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.3483491 = fieldWeight in 8341, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8341)
0.057176907 = weight(_text_:data in 8341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057176907 = score(doc=8341,freq=6.0), product of:
0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.48408815 = fieldWeight in 8341, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8341)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- Discusses the facilities in USMARC for linking fields containing non Roman scripts to their Romanized counterparts. In USMARC authority records, the 880 field: Alternate graphic representation (which contains the authentic non Roman text); is linked to the field that contains the same information in romanized form. The 880 field was added to the USMARC Format for Bibliographic Data in 1984 and to the USMARC Format for Authority Data in 1991. The new data elements in the Authority Format are modeled on those of the Bibliographic Format
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 18(1993) no.1, S.27-62
-
Chapman, L.: How to catalogue : a practical manual using AACR2 and Library of Congress (1990)
0.02
0.02345206 = product of:
0.10553427 = sum of:
0.07252317 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 6081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07252317 = score(doc=6081,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.49264002 = fieldWeight in 6081, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6081)
0.0330111 = weight(_text_:data in 6081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0330111 = score(doc=6081,freq=2.0), product of:
0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 6081, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6081)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- A practical manual describing standard procedures in cataloguing using AACR2 1988 revision and LoC cataloguing data
- LCSH
- Cataloging
- Subject
- Cataloging
-
McCallum, S.: What makes a standard? (1996)
0.02
0.02345206 = product of:
0.10553427 = sum of:
0.07252317 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07252317 = score(doc=5104,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.49264002 = fieldWeight in 5104, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5104)
0.0330111 = weight(_text_:data in 5104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0330111 = score(doc=5104,freq=2.0), product of:
0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 5104, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5104)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- Describes the characteristics of de jure standards developed by the formal standards organizations (ISO, ANSI, and NISO) and formal industry groups, and de facto standards developed by informal, self selected groups and companies. Compares this process with that used to develop Internet standards. Examines 3 key standards for the library community on this basis: standards that form the basis for encoding bibliographic data (MARC); standards for electronic documents (SGML-based), and standards for ordering and purchasing bibliographic items (EDIFACT-based)
- Footnote
- Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Cataloging and Classification Standards and Rules"
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 21(1996) nos.3/4, S.5-15
-
Stephens, A.: ¬The British National Bibliographic Service (1988)
0.02
0.023414647 = product of:
0.10536591 = sum of:
0.06410203 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06410203 = score(doc=417,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.43543637 = fieldWeight in 417, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=417)
0.04126388 = weight(_text_:data in 417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04126388 = score(doc=417,freq=2.0), product of:
0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.34936053 = fieldWeight in 417, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=417)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- The British Library's national bibliographic service and UKMARC database are described in detail. The use of shared cataloguing data in the UK, and overseas distribution of UKMARC records are discussed.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 8(1988) nos.3/4, S.155-163
-
Galvão, R.M.: UNIMARC format relevance : maintenance or replacement? (2018)
0.02
0.022809077 = product of:
0.102640845 = sum of:
0.04487142 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04487142 = score(doc=5163,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 5163, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5163)
0.057769425 = weight(_text_:data in 5163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057769425 = score(doc=5163,freq=8.0), product of:
0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 5163, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5163)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- This article presents an empirical study focused on a qualitative analysis of the UNIMARC format. An analysis of the structural quality of the data provided by the format is evaluated to determine its current suitability for meeting the requirements and trends in data architecture for the information network and the Semantic Web. Driven by a set of quality characteristics that identify weaknesses in the data schema that cannot be bridged by simply converting data to MARC XML or RDF/XML, we conclude that the UNIMARC format is not compliant with the current metadata schema desiderata and must be replaced.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 56(2018) no.1, S.62-82
-
Cataloging and classification standards and rules (1996)
0.02
0.022595724 = product of:
0.101680756 = sum of:
0.07692243 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07692243 = score(doc=57,freq=8.0), product of:
0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.52252364 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
0.024758326 = weight(_text_:data in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024758326 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.037353165 = queryNorm
0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Content
- Enthält die Beiträge: McCALLUM, S.: What makes a standard?; HOLLEY, R.P.: IFLA and international standards in the area of bibliographical control; STERN, B.: Internationalizing the rules in AACR2: adopting and translating AACR2 for use in non-Anglo-American and non-English-speaking cataloging environments; GUILES, K., R. EWALD u. B. TILLETT: The evolution of LCRIs: from de facto standards to ?; SPICHER, K.M.: The development of the MARC format; THOMAS, S.E.: The core bibliographic record and the program for cooperative cataloging; PALOWITCH, C. u. L. HOROWITZ: Meta-information structures for networked information resources; KUHAGEN, J.A.: Standards for name and series authority records; WILLIAMSON, N.: Standards and rules for subject access; GUENTHER, R.S.: Automating the Library of Congress Classification Scheme: implementation of the USMARC Format for Classification Data; LEAZER, G.H.: Recent research on the sequential bibliographical relationship and its implications for standards and the library catalog: an examination of serials
- Series
- Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.21, nos.3/4
