Search (107 results, page 1 of 6)

0.0687312 = product of:
  0.1374624 = sum of:
    0.03853567 = weight(_text_:wide in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03853567 = score(doc=3005,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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)
    0.029565949 = weight(_text_:web in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029565949 = score(doc=3005,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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)
    0.069360785 = weight(_text_:computer in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069360785 = score(doc=3005,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.42731008 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

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.

0.039725944 = product of:
  0.11917783 = sum of:
    0.067437425 = weight(_text_:wide in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067437425 = score(doc=5423,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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)
    0.05174041 = weight(_text_:web in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05174041 = score(doc=5423,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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.

0.037795175 = product of:
  0.11338552 = sum of:
    0.06812209 = weight(_text_:wide in 3742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06812209 = score(doc=3742,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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)
    0.045263432 = weight(_text_:web in 3742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045263432 = score(doc=3742,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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.

0.037393916 = product of:
  0.112181745 = sum of:
    0.04816959 = weight(_text_:wide in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04816959 = score(doc=1467,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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)
    0.064012155 = weight(_text_:web in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064012155 = score(doc=1467,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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

0.034674477 = product of:
  0.10402343 = sum of:
    0.067437425 = weight(_text_:wide in 8470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067437425 = score(doc=8470,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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)
    0.036585998 = weight(_text_:web in 8470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036585998 = score(doc=8470,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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

0.034674477 = product of:
  0.10402343 = sum of:
    0.067437425 = weight(_text_:wide in 6616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067437425 = score(doc=6616,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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)
    0.036585998 = weight(_text_:web in 6616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036585998 = score(doc=6616,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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

0.033301298 = product of:
  0.066602595 = sum of:
    0.024084795 = weight(_text_:wide in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024084795 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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)
    0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026132854 = score(doc=1166,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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)
    0.016384944 = weight(_text_:computer in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016384944 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.100942515 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

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.

0.02528477 = product of:
  0.07585431 = sum of:
    0.041812565 = weight(_text_:web in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041812565 = score(doc=2845,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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)
    0.034041744 = product of:
      0.06808349 = sum of:
        0.06808349 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06808349 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = 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

0.02476748 = product of:
  0.07430244 = sum of:
    0.04816959 = weight(_text_:wide in 6617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04816959 = score(doc=6617,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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)
    0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 6617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026132854 = score(doc=6617,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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

0.023561096 = product of:
  0.070683286 = sum of:
    0.031359423 = weight(_text_:web in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031359423 = score(doc=5070,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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)
    0.039323866 = weight(_text_:computer in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039323866 = score(doc=5070,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24226204 = fieldWeight in 5070, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, 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]

Series

Lecture notes in computer science; vol.1867: Lecture notes on artificial intelligence

0.022313368 = product of:
  0.0669401 = sum of:
    0.04587784 = weight(_text_:computer in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04587784 = score(doc=2425,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.28263903 = fieldWeight in 2425, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2425)
    0.021062255 = product of:
      0.04212451 = sum of:
        0.04212451 = weight(_text_:22 in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04212451 = score(doc=2425,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2425, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2425)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Series

Lecture notes in computer science; vol.4172

Source

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

0.019216085 = product of:
  0.057648253 = sum of:
    0.036585998 = weight(_text_:web in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036585998 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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)
    0.021062255 = product of:
      0.04212451 = sum of:
        0.04212451 = weight(_text_:22 in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04212451 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2837, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = 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

0.017337238 = product of:
  0.052011713 = sum of:
    0.033718713 = weight(_text_:wide in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033718713 = score(doc=4873,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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)
    0.018292999 = weight(_text_:web in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018292999 = score(doc=4873,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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.

0.016470928 = product of:
  0.049412783 = sum of:
    0.031359423 = weight(_text_:web in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031359423 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3841, 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=3841)
    0.01805336 = product of:
      0.03610672 = sum of:
        0.03610672 = weight(_text_:22 in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610672 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = 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(2/6)

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

0.015938118 = product of:
  0.047814354 = sum of:
    0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03276989 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 2422, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2422)
    0.0150444675 = product of:
      0.030088935 = sum of:
        0.030088935 = weight(_text_:22 in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030088935 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2422, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2422)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Series

Lecture notes in computer science; vol.2769

Source

Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 7th European Conference, proceedings / ECDL 2003, Trondheim, Norway, August 17-22, 2003

0.015548038 = product of:
  0.09328823 = sum of:
    0.09328823 = product of:
      0.18657646 = sum of:
        0.18657646 = weight(_text_:programs in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18657646 = score(doc=96,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25748047 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.72462374 = fieldWeight in 96, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=96)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Programs for converting bibligraphic data are not only of interest to libraries but also to researchers compiling bibliographies. However, few programs are currently available. In choosing a suitable program care must be taken to ensure that it is capable of identifying and converting all fields likely to be encountered, to the required format. Optical scanning can provide a convenient solution for converting printed output to machine-readable format. Increasing acceptance of standardised formats will facilitate exchange of data

0.013742654 = product of:
  0.08245592 = sum of:
    0.08245592 = product of:
      0.16491184 = sum of:
        0.16491184 = weight(_text_:programs in 6690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16491184 = score(doc=6690,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25748047 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.6404829 = fieldWeight in 6690, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Discusses examples of ASCII data formats available in database programs which can be used for data exchange. Describes comma-delimited format, fixed length format, and one field per line format. Details a WordPerfect wordprocessing macro for converting data in comma-delimited files of a database system into a secondary mail merge file format of a wordprocessing package

0.012845224 = product of:
  0.07707134 = sum of:
    0.07707134 = weight(_text_:wide in 3542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07707134 = score(doc=3542,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.3916274 = fieldWeight in 3542, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3542)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

MARC (Machine Readable Cataloguing) format has been widely used and discussed in the library profession. However, there appear to have a wide spread misunderstanding of its real structure and attributes. Discusses the need for use to understand it a little more. Presents the general misconceptions about MARC, the structure of MARC format. In this library automation age, MARC is a key element in library services, and it deserves another look.

0.01238374 = product of:
  0.03715122 = sum of:
    0.024084795 = weight(_text_:wide in 65) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024084795 = score(doc=65,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.122383565 = fieldWeight in 65, 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=65)
    0.013066427 = weight(_text_:web in 65) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013066427 = score(doc=65,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.09014259 = fieldWeight in 65, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=65)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Content

"Mit der steigenden Zahl von digitalen und digitalisierten Dokumenten, die im World Wide Web zur Verfügung stehen, verliert der aktuelle Speicherort einer Publikation seine Bedeutung. Entscheidend für die Forschung sind vielmehr Auffindbarkeit und schnelle Nutzungsmöglichkeit von Informationen. Global in elektronischen Umgebungen zu arbeiten, Daten, Informationen, Texte zu tauschen und zu mischen, ist zur täglichen Routine für Wissenschaftler und Bibliothekare geworden. 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. Sprachraumübergreifende Standards für Metadaten und ein reibungsloser Metadatenaustausch sind Voraussetzung für die wissenschaftliche Kommunikation und für den individuellen Erfolg des einzelnen Forschers. 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. Der Standardisierungsausschuss hat in seiner 9. Sitzung am 15. Dezember 2004 wegweisende Beschlüsse zur Internationalisierung der deutschen Standards gefasst.' Diese sehen als ersten Meilenstein die flächendeckende Einführung von MARC 21 als Austauschformat vor. Die Verbundsysteme als größte Datenproduzenten haben sich verpflichtet, MARC 21 einheitlich, das heißt ohne verbundspezifische Besonderheiten, einzuführen und anzuwenden. Gleichzeitig werden die bisher unterschiedlichen Verbundrichtlinien vereinheitlicht. Die Einführung von MARC 21 bildet zusammen mit den Bestrebungen zur Verbesserung der Zusammenarbeit der Verbundsysteme einen entscheidenden Schritt, die Voraussetzungen für Fremddatenübernahme und Datentausch für die deutschen Bibliotheken sowohl auf nationaler als auch auf internationaler Ebene erheblich zu verbessern.

0.011661029 = product of:
  0.069966175 = sum of:
    0.069966175 = product of:
      0.13993235 = sum of:
        0.13993235 = weight(_text_:programs in 3750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13993235 = score(doc=3750,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25748047 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.5434678 = fieldWeight in 3750, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3750)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.