Search (163 results, page 1 of 9)

  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  1. Johnson, B.C.: XML and MARC : which is "right"? (2001) 0.07 
    0.07188201 = product of:
  0.14376402 = sum of:
    0.06437215 = weight(_text_:wide in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06437215 = score(doc=5423,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18785246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 5423, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5423)
    0.04938862 = weight(_text_:web in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04938862 = score(doc=5423,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 5423, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5423)
    0.030003246 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030003246 = score(doc=5423,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 5423, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5423)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    This article explores recent discussions about appropriate mark-up conventions for library information intended for use on the World Wide Web. In particular, the question of whether the MARC 21 format will continue to be useful and whether the time is right for a full-fledged conversion effort to XML is explored. The author concludes that the MARC format will be relevant well into the future, and its use will not hamper access to bibliographic information via the web. Early XML exploratory efforts carried out at the Stanford University's Lane Medical Library are reported on. Although these efforts are a promising start, much more consultation and investigation is needed to arrive at broadly acceptable standards for XML library information encoding and retrieval.
  2. Kaiser, M.; Lieder, H.J.; Majcen, K.; Vallant, H.: New ways of sharing and using authority information : the LEAF project (2003) 0.04 
    0.041681826 = product of:
  0.06252274 = sum of:
    0.022990054 = weight(_text_:wide in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022990054 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18785246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.122383565 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.02494502 = weight(_text_:web in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02494502 = score(doc=1166,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.010715445 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010715445 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.08355226 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.003872223 = product of:
      0.011616669 = sum of:
        0.011616669 = weight(_text_:system in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011616669 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.08699492 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(4/6)
    Abstract
    This article presents an overview of the LEAF project (Linking and Exploring Authority Files)1, which has set out to provide a framework for international, collaborative work in the sector of authority data with respect to authority control. Elaborating the virtues of authority control in today's Web environment is an almost futile exercise, since so much has been said and written about it in the last few years.2 The World Wide Web is generally understood to be poorly structured-both with regard to content and to locating required information. Highly structured databases might be viewed as small islands of precision within this chaotic environment. Though the Web in general or any particular structured database would greatly benefit from increased authority control, it should be noted that our following considerations only refer to authority control with regard to databases of "memory institutions" (i.e., libraries, archives, and museums). Moreover, when talking about authority records, we exclusively refer to personal name authority records that describe a specific person. Although different types of authority records could indeed be used in similar ways to the ones presented in this article, discussing those different types is outside the scope of both the LEAF project and this article. Personal name authority records-as are all other "authorities"-are maintained as separate records and linked to various kinds of descriptive records. Name authority records are usually either kept in independent databases or in separate tables in the database containing the descriptive records. This practice points at a crucial benefit: by linking any number of descriptive records to an authorized name record, the records related to this entity are collocated in the database. Variant forms of the authorized name are referenced in the authority records and thus ensure the consistency of the database while enabling search and retrieval operations that produce accurate results. On one hand, authority control may be viewed as a positive prerequisite of a consistent catalogue; on the other, the creation of new authority records is a very time consuming and expensive undertaking. As a consequence, various models of providing access to existing authority records have emerged: the Library of Congress and the French National Library (Bibliothèque nationale de France), for example, make their authority records available to all via a web-based search service.3 In Germany, the Personal Name Authority File (PND, Personennamendatei4) maintained by the German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek, Frankfurt/Main) offers a different approach to shared access: within a closed network, participating institutions have online access to their pooled data. The number of recent projects and initiatives that have addressed the issue of authority control in one way or another is considerable.5 Two important current initiatives should be mentioned here: The Name Authority Cooperative (NACO) and Virtual International Authority File (VIAF).
    NACO was established in 1976 and is hosted by the Library of Congress. At the beginning of 2003, nearly 400 institutions were involved in this undertaking, including 43 institutions from outside the United States.6 Despite the enormous success of NACO and the impressive annual growth of the initiative, there are requirements for participation that form an obstacle for many institutions: they have to follow the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) and employ the MARC217 data format. Participating institutions also have to belong to either OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) or RLG (Research Libraries Group) in order to be able to contribute records, and they have to provide a specified minimum number of authority records per year. A recent proof of concept project of the Library of Congress, OCLC and the German National Library-Virtual International Authority File (VIAF)8-will, in its first phase, test automatic linking of the records of the Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF) and the German Personal Name Authority File by using matching algorithms and software developed by OCLC. The results are expected to form the basis of a "Virtual International Authority File". The project will then test the maintenance of the virtual authority file by employing the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)9 to harvest the metadata for new, updated, and deleted records. When using the "Virtual International Authority File" a cataloguer will be able to check the system to see whether the authority record he wants to establish already exists. The final phase of the project will test possibilities for displaying records in the preferred language and script of the end user. Currently, there are still some clear limitations associated with the ways in which authority records are used by memory institutions. One of the main problems has to do with limited access: generally only large institutions or those that are part of a library network have unlimited online access to permanently updated authority records. Smaller institutions outside these networks usually have to fall back on less efficient ways of obtaining authority data, or have no access at all. Cross-domain sharing of authority data between libraries, archives, museums and other memory institutions simply does not happen at present. Public users are, by and large, not even aware that such things as name authority records exist and are excluded from access to these information resources.
  3. Nix, M.: ¬Die praktische Einsetzbarkeit des CIDOC CRM in Informationssystemen im Bereich des Kulturerbes (2004) 0.04 
    0.036077246 = product of:
  0.10823174 = sum of:
    0.065025695 = weight(_text_:wide in 3742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.065025695 = score(doc=3742,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18785246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.34615302 = fieldWeight in 3742, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3742)
    0.043206044 = weight(_text_:web in 3742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043206044 = score(doc=3742,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 3742, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3742)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Es steht uns eine praktisch unbegrenzte Menge an Informationen über das World Wide Web zur Verfügung. Das Problem, das daraus erwächst, ist, diese Menge zu bewältigen und an die Information zu gelangen, die im Augenblick benötigt wird. Das überwältigende Angebot zwingt sowohl professionelle Anwender als auch Laien zu suchen, ungeachtet ihrer Ansprüche an die gewünschten Informationen. Um dieses Suchen effizienter zu gestalten, gibt es einerseits die Möglichkeit, leistungsstärkere Suchmaschinen zu entwickeln. Eine andere Möglichkeit ist, Daten besser zu strukturieren, um an die darin enthaltenen Informationen zu gelangen. Hoch strukturierte Daten sind maschinell verarbeitbar, sodass ein Teil der Sucharbeit automatisiert werden kann. Das Semantic Web ist die Vision eines weiterentwickelten World Wide Web, in dem derart strukturierten Daten von so genannten Softwareagenten verarbeitet werden. Die fortschreitende inhaltliche Strukturierung von Daten wird Semantisierung genannt. Im ersten Teil der Arbeit sollen einige wichtige Methoden der inhaltlichen Strukturierung von Daten skizziert werden, um die Stellung von Ontologien innerhalb der Semantisierung zu klären. Im dritten Kapitel wird der Aufbau und die Aufgabe des CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM), einer Domain Ontologie im Bereich des Kulturerbes dargestellt. Im darauf folgenden praktischen Teil werden verschiedene Ansätze zur Verwendung des CRM diskutiert und umgesetzt. Es wird ein Vorschlag zur Implementierung des Modells in XML erarbeitet. Das ist eine Möglichkeit, die dem Datentransport dient. Außerdem wird der Entwurf einer Klassenbibliothek in Java dargelegt, auf die die Verarbeitung und Nutzung des Modells innerhalb eines Informationssystems aufbauen kann.
  4. Miller, D.R.: XML: Libraries' strategic opportunity (2001) 0.04 
    0.035694227 = product of:
  0.10708268 = sum of:
    0.045980107 = weight(_text_:wide in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045980107 = score(doc=1467,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18785246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
    0.06110257 = weight(_text_:web in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06110257 = score(doc=1467,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    XML (eXtensible Markup Language) is fast gaining favor as the universal format for data and document exchange -- in effect becoming the lingua franca of the Information Age. Currently, "library information" is at a particular disadvantage on the rapidly evolving World Wide Web. Why? Despite libraries'explorations of web catalogs, scanning projects, digital data repositories, and creation of web pages galore, there remains a digital divide. The core of libraries' data troves are stored in proprietary formats of integrated library systems (ILS) and in the complex and arcane MARC formats -- both restricted chiefly to the province of technical services and systems librarians. Even they are hard-pressed to extract and integrate this wealth of data with resources from outside this rarefied environment. Segregation of library information underlies many difficulties: producing standard bibliographic citations from MARC data, automatically creating new materials lists (including new web resources) on a particular topic, exchanging data with our vendors, and even migrating from one ILS to another. Why do we continue to hobble our potential by embracing these self-imposed limitations? Most ILSs began in libraries, which soon recognized the pitfalls of do-it-yourself solutions. Thus, we wisely anticipated the necessity for standards. However, with the advent of the web, we soon found "our" collections and a flood of new resources appearing in digital format on opposite sides of the divide. If we do not act quickly to integrate library resources with mainstream web resources, we are in grave danger of becoming marginalized
  5. Cantrall, D.: From MARC to Mosaic : progressing toward data interchangeability at the Oregon State Archives (1994) 0.03 
    0.033098396 = product of:
  0.099295184 = sum of:
    0.06437215 = weight(_text_:wide in 8470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06437215 = score(doc=8470,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18785246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 8470, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8470)
    0.03492303 = weight(_text_:web in 8470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03492303 = score(doc=8470,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 8470, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8470)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Explains the technology used by the Oregon State Archives to relaize the goal of data interchangeability given the prescribed nature of the MARC format. Describes an emergent model of learning and information delivery focusing on the example of World Wide Web, accessed most often by the software client Mosaic, which is the fastest growing segment of the Internet information highway. Also describes The Data Magician, a flexible program which allows for many combinations of input and output formats, and will read unconventional formats such as MARC communications format. Oregon State Archives, using Mosaic and The Data Magician, are consequently able to present valuable electronic information to a variety of users
  6. Oeltjen, W.: Dokumentenstrukturen manipulieren und visualisieren : über das Arbeiten mit der logischen Struktur (1998) 0.03 
    0.033098396 = product of:
  0.099295184 = sum of:
    0.06437215 = weight(_text_:wide in 6616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06437215 = score(doc=6616,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18785246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 6616, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6616)
    0.03492303 = weight(_text_:web in 6616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03492303 = score(doc=6616,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 6616, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6616)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Thema dieses Beitrages sind Dokumentenstrukturen und zwar aus zwei Blickrichtungen: aus der Sicht der Autoren, die ein Dokument mit Computerunterstützung erstellen und die Dokumentenstruktur manipulieren und aus der Sicht der Lesenden, die ein Dokument lesen und die Struktur des Dokumentes wahrnehmen. Bei der Dokumentenstruktur wird unterschieden zwischen der logischen Struktur und der grafischen Struktur eines Dokumentes. Diese Trennung ermöglicht das Manipulieren und Visualisieren der logischen Struktur. Welche Bedeutung das für die Autoren und für die Benutzenden des Dokumentes hat, soll in dem Beitrag u.a. am Beispiel der Auszeichnungssprache HTML, der Dokumentenbeschreibungssprache des World-Wide Web, erörtert werden
  7. Schwarz, I.; Umstätter, W.: Zum Prinzip der Objektdarstellung in SGML (1998) 0.02 
    0.023641711 = product of:
  0.07092513 = sum of:
    0.045980107 = weight(_text_:wide in 6617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045980107 = score(doc=6617,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18785246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 6617, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6617)
    0.02494502 = weight(_text_:web in 6617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02494502 = score(doc=6617,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 6617, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6617)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Semantische Thesauri sind dazu geeignet, Wissen zu strukturieren. Der vorliegende Beitrag soll unter anderem deutlich machen, daß die SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language) ein mögliches Instrument zum Aufbau semantischer Thesauri ist. Die SGML ist eine Metasprache, die geeignet ist, Texte in natürlicher Sprache mit Strukturen zu versehen, die das Erkennen des Informationsgehaltes eines Dokuments erleichtern. Zugleich wird damit unter anderem die Voraussetzung dafür geschaffen, Volltextindexierungen in einer Weise vorzunehmen, wie dies bislang nicht möglich war. Die rasant zunehmende Bedeutung der SGML, liegt zweifellos an der bekanntesten Document Type Definition (DTD) im Rahmen der SGML, der Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), wie wir sie im WWW (World Wide Web) des Internet in Anwendung finden. Darüber hinaus erfüllt SGML je nach DTD die Bedingungen, die Objektorientiertheit unserer natürlichen Sprache mit ihren definierbaren Begriffen sinnvoll zu unterstützen und beispielsweise mit Hilfe der objektorientierten Programmiersprache JAVA zu verarbeiten. Besonders hervorzuheben ist die sich damit verändernde Publikationsform bei wissensbasierten Texten, in denen SGML-Dokumente nicht mehr nur für sich zu betrachten sind, wie Zeitschriftenaufsätze oder Bücher, sondern die darüber hinaus in Form von Wissenselementen in einer Daten- und Wissensbank organisiert und recherchiert werden können
  8. Salgáné, M.M.: Our electronic era and bibliographic informations computer-related bibliographic data formats, metadata formats and BDML (2005) 0.02 
    0.021668717 = product of:
  0.06500615 = sum of:
    0.036784086 = weight(_text_:wide in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036784086 = score(doc=3005,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18785246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.1958137 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
    0.02822207 = weight(_text_:web in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02822207 = score(doc=3005,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Using new communication technologies libraries must face continuously new questions, possibilities and expectations. This study discusses library-related aspects of our electronic era and how computer-related data formats affect bibliographic dataprocessing to give a summary of the most important results. First bibliographic formats for the exchange of bibliographic and related information in the machine-readable form between different types of computer systems were created more than 30 years ago. The evolution of information technologies leads to the improvement of computer systems. In addition to the development of computers and media types Internet has a great influence on data structure as well. Since the introduction of MARC bibliographic format, technology of data exchange between computers and between different computer systems has reached a very sophisticated stage and has contributed to the creation of new standards in this field. Today libraries work with this new infrastructure that induces many challenges. One of the most significant challenges is moving from a relatively homogenous bibliographic environment to a diverse one. Despite these challenges such changes are achievable and necessary to exploit possibilities of new metadata and technologies like the Internet and XML (Extensible Markup Language). XML is an open standard, a universal language for data on the Web. XML is nearly six-years-old standard designed for the description and computer-based management of (semi)-structured data and structured texts. XML gives developers the power to deliver structured data from a wide variety of applications and it is also an ideal format from server-to-server transfer of structured data. XML also isn't limited for Internet use and is an especially valuable tool in the field of library. In fact, XML's main strength - organizing information - makes it perfect for exchanging data between different systems. Tools that work with the XML can be used to process XML records without incurring additional costs associated with one's own software development. In addition, XML is also a suitable format for library web services. The Department of Computer-related Graphic Design and Library and Information Sciences of Debrecen University launched the BDML (Bibliographic Description Markup Language) development project in order to standardize bibliogrphic description with the help of XML.
  9. Coyle, K.: Future considerations : the functional library systems record (2004) 0.02 
    0.021583099 = product of:
  0.12949859 = sum of:
    0.12949859 = sum of:
      0.037173342 = weight(_text_:system in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037173342 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042397358 = queryNorm
          0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
      0.04637119 = weight(_text_:29 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04637119 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14914064 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042397358 = queryNorm
          0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
      0.045954052 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045954052 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14846832 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042397358 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    The paper performs a thought experiment on the concept of a record based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records and library system functions, and concludes that if we want to develop a functional bibliographic record we need to do it within the context of a flexible, functional library systems record structure. The article suggests a new way to look at the library systems record that would allow libraries to move forward in terms of technology but also in terms of serving library users.
    Date
    9.12.2005 19:21:29
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.166-174
  10. Kernernman, V.Y.; Koenig, M.E.D.: USMARC as a standardized format for the Internet hypermedia document control/retrieval/delivery system design (1996) 0.02 
    0.021371815 = product of:
  0.06411544 = sum of:
    0.042430993 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042430993 = score(doc=5565,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 5565, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5565)
    0.02168445 = product of:
      0.065053344 = sum of:
        0.065053344 = weight(_text_:system in 5565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.065053344 = score(doc=5565,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.4871716 = fieldWeight in 5565, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5565)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Surveys how the USMARC integrated bibliographic format (UBIF) could be mapped onto an hypermedia document USMARC format (HDUF) to meet the requirements of a hypermedia document control/retrieval/delivery (HDRD) system for the Internet. Explores the characteristics of such a system using an example of the WWW's directory and searching engine Yahoo!. Discusses additional standard specifications for the UBIF's structure, content designation, and data content to map this format into the HDUF that can serve as a proxy for the Net HDRD system
  11. Manguinhas, H.; Freire, N.; Machado, J.; Borbinha, J.: Supporting multilingual bibliographic resource discovery with Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (2012) 0.02 
    0.021174401 = product of:
  0.0635232 = sum of:
    0.05577876 = weight(_text_:web in 133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05577876 = score(doc=133,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 133, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=133)
    0.007744446 = product of:
      0.023233337 = sum of:
        0.023233337 = weight(_text_:system in 133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023233337 = score(doc=133,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 133, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=133)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    This paper describes an experiment exploring the hypothesis that innovative application of the Functional Require-ments for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) principles can complement traditional bibliographic resource discovery systems in order to improve the user experience. A specialized service was implemented that, when given a plain list of results from a regular online catalogue, was able to process, enrich and present that list in a more relevant way for the user. This service pre-processes the records of a traditional online catalogue in order to build a semantic structure following the FRBR model. The service also explores web search features that have been revolutionizing the way users conceptualize resource discovery, such as relevance ranking and metasearching. This work was developed in the context of the TELPlus project. We processed nearly one hundred thousand bibliographic and authority records, in multiple languages, and originating from twelve European na-tional libraries. This paper describes the architecture of the service and the main challenges faced, especially concerning the extraction and linking of the relevant FRBR entities from the bibliographic metadata produced by the libraries. The service was evaluated by end users, who filled out a questionnaire after using a traditional online catalogue and the new service, both with the same bibliographic collection. The analysis of the results supports the hypothesis that FRBR can be implemented for re-source discovery in a non-intrusive way, reusing the data of any existing traditional bibliographic system.
    Content
    Beitrag eines Schwerpunktthemas: Semantic Web and Reasoning for Cultural Heritage and Digital Libraries: Vgl.: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/supporting-multilingual-bibliographic-resource-discovery-functional-requirements-bibliograph http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/sites/default/files/swj145_2.pdf.
    Source
    Semantic Web journal. 3(2012) no.1, S.3-21
  12. Tennant, R.: ¬A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty-first century (2004) 0.02 
    0.020524994 = product of:
  0.06157498 = sum of:
    0.03991203 = weight(_text_:web in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03991203 = score(doc=2845,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
    0.021662949 = product of:
      0.064988844 = sum of:
        0.064988844 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064988844 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14846832 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    The current library bibliographic infrastructure was constructed in the early days of computers - before the Web, XML, and a variety of other technological advances that now offer new opportunities. General requirements of a modern metadata infrastructure for libraries are identified, including such qualities as versatility, extensibility, granularity, and openness. A new kind of metadata infrastructure is then proposed that exhibits at least some of those qualities. Some key challenges that must be overcome to implement a change of this magnitude are identified.
    Date
    9.12.2005 19:22:38
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.175-181
  13. Leazer, G.H.: ¬A conceptual schema for the control of bibliographic works (1994) 0.02 
    0.018758519 = product of:
  0.056275554 = sum of:
    0.04286178 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04286178 = score(doc=3033,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 3033, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3033)
    0.013413775 = product of:
      0.040241323 = sum of:
        0.040241323 = weight(_text_:system in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040241323 = score(doc=3033,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.30135927 = fieldWeight in 3033, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3033)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    In this paper I describe a conceptual design of a bibliographic retrieval system that enables more thourough control of bibliographic entities. A bibliographic entity has 2 components: the intellectual work and the physical item. Users searching bibliographic retrieval systems generally do not search for a specific item, but are willing to retrieve one of several alternative manifestations of a work. However, contemporary bibliographic retrieval systems are based solely on the descriptions of items. Works are described only implcitly by collocating descriptions of items. This method has resulted in a tool that does not include important descriptive attributes of the work, e.g. information regarding its history, its genre, or its bibliographic relationships. A bibliographic relationship is an association between 2 bibliographic entities. A system evaluation methodology wasused to create a conceptual schema for a bibliographic retrieval system. The model is based upon an analysis of data elements in the USMARC Formats for Bibliographic Data. The conceptual schema describes a database comprising 2 separate files of bibliographic descriptions, one of works and the other of items. Each file consists of individual descriptive surrogates of their respective entities. the specific data content of each file is defined by a data dictionary. Data elements used in the description of bibliographic works reflect the nature of works as intellectual and linguistic objects. The descriptive elements of bibliographic items describe the physical properties of bibliographic entities. Bibliographic relationships constitute the logical strucutre of the database
  14. Martin, P.: Conventions and notations for knowledge representation and retrieval (2000) 0.02 
    0.018550364 = product of:
  0.05565109 = sum of:
    0.029934023 = weight(_text_:web in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029934023 = score(doc=5070,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 5070, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5070)
    0.025717068 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025717068 = score(doc=5070,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 5070, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5070)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Much research has focused on the problem of knowledge accessibility, sharing and reuse. Specific languages (e.g. KIF, CG, RDF) and ontologies have been proposed. Common characteristics, conventions or ontological distinctions are beginning to emerge. Since knowledge providers (humans and software agents) must follow common conventions for the knowledge to be widely accessed and re-used, we propose lexical, structural, semantic and ontological conventions based on various knowledge representation projects and our own research. These are minimal conventions that can be followed by most and cover the most common knowledge representation cases. However, agreement and refinements are still required. We also show that a notation can be both readable and expressive by quickly presenting two new notations -- Formalized English (FE) and Frame-CG (FCG) - derived from the CG linear form [9] and Frame-Logics [4]. These notations support the above conventions, and are implemented in our Web-based knowledge representation and document indexation tool, WebKB¹ [7]
  15. Oehlschläger, S.: Aus der 48. Sitzung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme am 12. und 13. November 2004 in Göttingen (2005) 0.02 
    0.018332472 = product of:
  0.036664944 = sum of:
    0.017638793 = weight(_text_:web in 3556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017638793 = score(doc=3556,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.12748088 = fieldWeight in 3556, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3556)
    0.015153927 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015153927 = score(doc=3556,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.11816074 = fieldWeight in 3556, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3556)
    0.003872223 = product of:
      0.011616669 = sum of:
        0.011616669 = weight(_text_:system in 3556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011616669 = score(doc=3556,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.08699492 = fieldWeight in 3556, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3556)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Content
    Die Deutsche Bibliothek Retrieval von Content In dem Projekt wird angestrebt, Verfahren zu entwickeln und einzuführen, die automatisch und ohne intellektuelle Bearbeitung für das Content-Retrieval ausreichend Sucheinstiege bieten. Dabei kann es sich um die Suche nach Inhalten von Volltexten, digitalen Abbildern, Audiofiles, Videofiles etc. von in Der Deutschen Bibliothek archivierten digitalen Ressourcen oder digitalen Surrogaten archivierter analoger Ressourcen (z. B. OCR-Ergebnisse) handeln. Inhalte, die in elektronischer Form vorhanden sind, aber dem InternetBenutzer Der Deutschen Bibliothek bisher nicht oder nur eingeschränkt zur Verfügung stehen, sollen in möglichst großem Umfang und mit möglichst großem Komfort nutzbar gemacht werden. Darüber hinaus sollen Inhalte benutzt werden, die für ein in ILTIS katalogisiertes Objekt beschreibenden Charakter haben, um auf das beschriebene Objekt zu verweisen. Die höchste Priorität liegt dabei auf der Erschließung von Inhalten in Textformaten. In einem ersten Schritt wurde der Volltext aller Zeitschriften, die im Projekt "Exilpresse digital" digitalisiert wurden, für eine erweiterte Suche genutzt. In einem nächsten Schritt soll die PSI-Software für die Volltextindexierung von Abstracts evaluiert werden. MILOS Mit dem Einsatz von MILOS eröffnet sich die Möglichkeit, nicht oder wenig sachlich erschlossene Bestände automatisch mit ergänzenden Inhaltserschließungsinformationen zu versehen, der Schwerpunkt liegt dabei auf der Freitext-Indexierung. Das bereits in einigen Bibliotheken eingesetzte System, das inzwischen von Der Deutschen Bibliothek für Deutschland lizenziert wurde, wurde in eine UNIX-Version überführt und angepasst. Inzwischen wurde nahezu der gesamte Bestand rückwirkend behandelt, die Daten werden im Gesamt-OPAC für die Recherche zur Verfügung stehen. Die in einer XMLStruktur abgelegten Indexeinträge werden dabei vollständig indexiert und zugänglich gemacht. Ein weiterer Entwicklungsschritt wird in dem Einsatz von MILOS im Online-Verfahren liegen.
    Hessisches BibliotheksinformationsSystem (HEBIS) Personennamendatei (PND) Vor dem Hintergrund der Harmonisierungsbestrebungen bei den Normdateien hat der HeBIS-Verbundrat nach erneuter Diskussion mehrheitlich entschieden, künftig neben SWD und GKD auch die PND als in HeBIS integrierte Normdatei obligatorisch zu nutzen. Im Zuge der wachsenden Vernetzung der regionalen Verbundsysteme kommt der Homogenität der Datensätze eine zunehmend wichtigere Bedeutung zu. Konkret wird dies speziell für HeBIS mit dem Produktionsbeginn des HeBIS-Portals und der integrierten verbundübergreifenden Fernleihe. Nur wenn die Verfasserrecherche in den einzelnen Verbunddatenbanken auf weitgehend einheitliche Datensätze einschließlich Verweisungsformen trifft, kann der Benutzer gute Trefferergebnisse erwarten und damit seine Chancen erhöhen, die gewünschte Literatur über Fernleihe bestellen zu können. Das Gesamtkonzept ist ausgelegt auf eine pragmatische und aufwandsreduzierte Vorgehensweise. Mit der Umsetzung wurde begonnen. Hochschulbibliothekszentrum des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (HBZ) FAST-Suchmaschine Das HBZ hat die Suchmaschinentechnologie des norwegischen Herstellers FAST lizenziert. Ziel ist es, die Produkte des HBZ mit Hilfe innovativer Suchmaschinentechnologien in einer neuen Ausrichtung zu präsentieren. Die Präsentation soll einen schnellen Recherche-Zugang zu den NRWVerbunddaten mittels FAST-Suchmaschinentechnologie mit folgenden Eigenschaften beinhalten: - Eine Web-Oberfläche, um für Laien eine schnelle Literatursuche anbieten zu können. - Eine Web-Oberfläche, um für Expertinnen und Experten eine schnelle Literatur-Suche anbieten zu können. - Präsentation von Zusatzfunktionen, die in gängigen Bibliothekskatalogen so nicht vorhanden sind. - Schaffung einer Zugriffsmöglichkeit für den KVK auf die Verbunddaten mit sehr kurzen Antwortzeiten Digitale Bibliothek Die Mehrzahl der Bibliotheken ist inzwischen auf Release 5 umgezogen. Einige befinden sich noch im Bearbeitungsstatus. Von den letzten drei Bibliotheken liegen inzwischen die Umzugsanträge vor. Durch die Umstrukturierung der RLB Koblenz zum LBZ Rheinland-Pfalz werden die Einzelsichten der RLB Koblenz, PLB Speyer und der Bipontina in Zweibrücken mit den Büchereistellen Koblenz und Neustadt zu einer Sicht verschmolzen.
  16. Helmkamp, K.; Oehlschläger, S.: ¬Die Internationalisierung deutscher Standards : auf dem Weg von MAB2 zu MARC 21. "Access" - der Schlüssel zum Erfolg (2006) 0.02 
    0.016549198 = product of:
  0.049647592 = sum of:
    0.032186076 = weight(_text_:wide in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032186076 = score(doc=4873,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18785246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.171337 = fieldWeight in 4873, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4873)
    0.017461514 = weight(_text_:web in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017461514 = score(doc=4873,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.12619963 = fieldWeight in 4873, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4873)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Seit einigen Jahren ist der Begriff "Access" oder "Zugang" in aller Munde. Er bezieht sich auf den Zugang zu Informationsressourcen im World Wide Web und stellt eine zentrale Voraussetzung für den Erfolg oder Misserfolg in der modernen Gesellschaft dar. Viele Lebensbereiche sind auf einen ungehinderten Zugang zu digitalen Ressourcen angewiesen. Für ein Wirtschaftsunternehmen ist es im 21. Jahrhundert nicht mehr nur wichtig, über traditionelle Produktionsfaktoren, wie Maschinen oder Kapital, zu verfügen, von gleicher Bedeutung ist der Zugang auf Informationen, die intern und extern zur Verfügung stehen, und die Grundlage für ein umfassendes Wissensmanagement bilden. Damit kann der Innovationsprozess beschleunigt und das eigene Risiko vermindert werden, beispielsweise wenn bei der Produktentwicklung die Zeit bis zur Markteinführung verringert und damit ein wesentlicher Vorteil gegenüber den Konkurrenten erzielt wird. Auch die Welt der Wissenschaft hat sich in den letzten Jahrzehnten sehr verändert. Das Interesse von Wissenschaftlern ist nicht auf ihre jeweilige eigene nationale und kulturelle Umgebung beschränkt. Sie benötigen Informationen über Dokumente und Daten aus der ganzen Welt. Gleichzeitig wollen sie die eigenen Forschungsergebnisse in der internationalen Forschungsgemeinschaft zur Diskussion stellen. Schließlich ist der Zugang zu digitalen und konventionellen Ressourcen eine Voraussetzung für den Erfolg in dynamischen und global agierenden Gesellschaften und Systemen. Diese sind davon abhängig, dass Wissen ständig neu generiert und organisiert wird, und propagieren das lebenslange Lernen. Das Konzept des lebenslangen Lernens richtet sich an den Einzelnen, der seine Informationskompetenz ständig erweitern soll. Dadurch wird das Bedürfnis nach Bildungsangeboten im weitesten Sinne und folglich nach einem ungehinderten Zugang zu ihnen geweckt. All dies zeigt, dass ein reibungsloser Metadatenaustausch auf der Grundlage von sprachraumübergreifenden Standards eine wichtige Voraussetzung für Erfolge in ganz unterschiedlichen Bereichen ist. Daraus erwachsen wichtige Aufgaben für Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare, die Daten über Dokumente bereitstellen und den Nachweis und Zugang zu ihnen garantieren. Deutschsprachige und ausländische Bibliotheken verwenden derzeit noch unterschiedliche Standards bei der Speicherung und dem Austausch von Katalogdaten. Während in Deutschland und Österreich das Maschinelle Austauschformat für Bibliotheken MAB2 verwendet wird, ist das Format Machine Readable Cataloguing MARC 21 der weltweit am weitesten verbreitete Standard.
  17. Bales, K.: ¬The USMARC formats and visual materials (1989) 0.02 
    0.016535815 = product of:
  0.04960744 = sum of:
    0.034289423 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034289423 = score(doc=2861,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
    0.015318017 = product of:
      0.045954052 = sum of:
        0.045954052 = weight(_text_:22 in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045954052 = score(doc=2861,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14846832 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2861, 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=2861)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Paper presented at a symposium on 'Implementing the Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT): Controlled Vocabulary in the Extended MARC format', held at the 1989 Annual Conference of the Art Libraries Society of North America. Describes how changes are effected in MARC and the role of the various groups in the library community that are involved in the implementing these changes. Discusses the expansion of the formats to accomodate cataloguing and retrieval for visual materials. Expanded capabilities for coding visual materials offer greater opportunity for user access.
    Date
    4.12.1995 22:40:20
  18. Lupovici, C.: ¬L'¬information secondaire du document primaire : format MARC ou SGML? (1997) 0.02 
    0.01614932 = product of:
  0.04844796 = sum of:
    0.03492303 = weight(_text_:web in 892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03492303 = score(doc=892,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 892, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=892)
    0.01352493 = product of:
      0.04057479 = sum of:
        0.04057479 = weight(_text_:29 in 892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04057479 = score(doc=892,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14914064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 892, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=892)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Secondary information, e.g. MARC based bibliographic records, comprises structured data for identifying, tagging, retrieving and management of primary documents. SGML, the standard format for coding content and structure of primary documents, was introduced in 1986 as a publishing tool but is now being applied to bibliographic records. SGML now comprises standard definitions (DTD) for books, serials, articles and mathematical formulae. A simplified version (HTML) is used for Web pages. Pilot projects to develop SGML as a standard for bibliographic exchange include the Dublin Core, listing 13 descriptive elements for Internet documents; the French GRISELI programme using SGML for exchanging grey literature and US experiments on reformatting USMARC for use with SGML-based records
    Date
    29. 1.1996 16:50:24
  19. Guenther, R.S.: Using the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) for resource description : guidelines and applications (2004) 0.02 
    0.016108764 = product of:
  0.04832629 = sum of:
    0.03492303 = weight(_text_:web in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03492303 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 2837, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2837)
    0.013403265 = product of:
      0.040209793 = sum of:
        0.040209793 = weight(_text_:22 in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040209793 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14846832 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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
  20. Guenther, R.S.: ¬The USMARC Format for Classification Data : development and implementation (1992) 0.02 
    0.01556018 = product of:
  0.04668054 = sum of:
    0.034289423 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034289423 = score(doc=2996,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 2996, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2996)
    0.012391115 = product of:
      0.037173342 = sum of:
        0.037173342 = weight(_text_:system in 2996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037173342 = score(doc=2996,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 2996, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2996)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses the newly developed USMARC Format for Classification Data. It reviews its potential uses within an online system and its development as one of the USMARC standards for representing bibliographic and related information in machine-readable form. It provides a summary of the fields in the format, and considers the prospects for its implementation.
    Theme
    Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 107
  • d 39
  • f 9
  • pl 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 136
  • el 10
  • m 10
  • s 10
  • n 3
  • b 2
  • l 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications