-
Kurth, M.; Ruddy, D.; Rupp, N.: Repurposing MARC metadata : using digital project experience to develop a metadata management design (2004)
0.19
0.18696123 = product of:
0.24928164 = sum of:
0.10339639 = weight(_text_:digital in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10339639 = score(doc=4748,freq=8.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.52297866 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045942668 = score(doc=4748,freq=8.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
0.09994257 = sum of:
0.059197973 = weight(_text_:project in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059197973 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0407446 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- Metadata and information technology staff in libraries that are building digital collections typically extract and manipulate MARC metadata sets to provide access to digital content via non-MARC schemes. Metadata processing in these libraries involves defining the relationships between metadata schemes, moving metadata between schemes, and coordinating the intellectual activity and physical resources required to create and manipulate metadata. Actively managing the non-MARC metadata resources used to build digital collections is something most of these libraries have only begun to do. This article proposes strategies for managing MARC metadata repurposing efforts as the first step in a coordinated approach to library metadata management. Guided by lessons learned from Cornell University library mapping and transformation activities, the authors apply the literature of data resource management to library metadata management and propose a model for managing MARC metadata repurposing processes through the implementation of a metadata management design.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.144-152
-
Aalberg, T.; Haugen, F.B.; Husby, O.: ¬A Tool for Converting from MARC to FRBR (2006)
0.15
0.15278558 = product of:
0.20371412 = sum of:
0.060314562 = weight(_text_:digital in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060314562 = score(doc=2425,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 2425, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2425)
0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026799891 = score(doc=2425,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 2425, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2425)
0.116599664 = sum of:
0.069064304 = weight(_text_:project in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.069064304 = score(doc=2425,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.32644984 = fieldWeight in 2425, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2425)
0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047535364 = score(doc=2425,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = 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)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- The FRBR model is by many considered to be an important contribution to the next generation of bibliographic catalogues, but a major challenge for the library community is how to use this model on already existing MARC-based bibliographic catalogues. This problem requires a solution for the interpretation and conversion of MARC records, and a tool for this kind of conversion is developed as a part of the Norwegian BIBSYS FRBR project. The tool is based on a systematic approach to the interpretation and conversion process and is designed to be adaptable to the rules applied in different catalogues.
- Source
- Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006
-
Proffitt, M.: Pulling it all together : use of METS in RLG cultural materials service (2004)
0.12
0.11645593 = product of:
0.15527457 = sum of:
0.097483054 = weight(_text_:digital in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.097483054 = score(doc=767,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.493069 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030628446 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
0.027163066 = product of:
0.054326132 = sum of:
0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054326132 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 767, 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=767)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- RLG has used METS for a particular application, that is as a wrapper for structural metadata. When RLG cultural materials was launched, there was no single way to deal with "complex digital objects". METS provides a standard means of encoding metadata regarding the digital objects represented in RCM, and METS has now been fully integrated into the workflow for this service.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.65-68
-
Avram, H.D.: Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC): 1961-1974 (2009)
0.11
0.106788516 = product of:
0.21357703 = sum of:
0.04641878 = weight(_text_:library in 3844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04641878 = score(doc=3844,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.3522223 = fieldWeight in 3844, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3844)
0.16715826 = sum of:
0.11962289 = weight(_text_:project in 3844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11962289 = score(doc=3844,freq=6.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.5654278 = fieldWeight in 3844, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3844)
0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 3844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047535364 = score(doc=3844,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3844, 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=3844)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- The MARC Program of the Library of Congress, led during its formative years by the author of this entry, was a landmark in the history of automation. Technical procedures, standards, and formatting for the catalog record were experimented with and developed in modern form in this project. The project began when computers were mainframe, slow, and limited in storage. So little was known then about many aspects of automation of library information resources that the MARC project can be seen as a pioneering effort with immeasurable impact.
- Date
- 27. 8.2011 14:22:53
- Source
- Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
-
Yee, R.; Beaubien, R.: ¬A preliminary crosswalk from METS to IMS content packaging (2004)
0.10
0.09995408 = product of:
0.13327211 = sum of:
0.073112294 = weight(_text_:digital in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.073112294 = score(doc=4752,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.36980176 = fieldWeight in 4752, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4752)
0.039787523 = weight(_text_:library in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039787523 = score(doc=4752,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 4752, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4752)
0.0203723 = product of:
0.0407446 = sum of:
0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0407446 = score(doc=4752,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4752, 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=4752)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- As educational technology becomes pervasive, demand will grow for library content to be incorporated into courseware. Among the barriers impeding interoperability between libraries and educational tools is the difference in specifications commonly used for the exchange of digital objects and metadata. Among libraries, Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) is a new but increasingly popular standard; the IMS content-package (IMS-CP) plays a parallel role in educational technology. This article describes how METS-encoded library content can be converted into digital objects for IMS-compliant systems through an XSLT-based crosswalk. The conceptual models behind METS and IMS-CP are compared, the design and limitations of an XSLT-based translation are described, and the crosswalks are related to other techniques to enhance interoperability.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.69-81
-
METS: an overview & tutorial : Metadata Encoding & Transmission Standard (METS) (2001)
0.08
0.08348307 = product of:
0.16696614 = sum of:
0.11560067 = weight(_text_:digital in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11560067 = score(doc=1323,freq=10.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.58470786 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
0.05136547 = weight(_text_:library in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05136547 = score(doc=1323,freq=10.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.38975742 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Maintaining a library of digital objects of necessaryy requires maintaining metadata about those objects. The metadata necessary for successful management and use of digital objeets is both more extensive than and different from the metadata used for managing collections of printed works and other physical materials. While a library may record descriptive metadata regarding a book in its collection, the book will not dissolve into a series of unconnected pages if the library fails to record structural metadata regarding the book's organization, nor will scholars be unable to evaluate the book's worth if the library fails to note that the book was produced using a Ryobi offset press. The Same cannot be said for a digital version of the saure book. Without structural metadata, the page image or text files comprising the digital work are of little use, and without technical metadata regarding the digitization process, scholars may be unsure of how accurate a reflection of the original the digital version provides. For internal management purposes, a library must have access to appropriate technical metadata in order to periodically refresh and migrate the data, ensuring the durability of valuable resources.
-
Gopinath, M.A.: Standardization for resource sharing databases (1995)
0.08
0.0819426 = product of:
0.1638852 = sum of:
0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030628446 = score(doc=4414,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 4414, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4414)
0.13325676 = sum of:
0.07893063 = weight(_text_:project in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07893063 = score(doc=4414,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.37308553 = fieldWeight in 4414, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4414)
0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054326132 = score(doc=4414,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4414, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4414)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- It is helpful and essential to adopt standards for bibliographic information, project description and institutional information which are shareable for access to information resources within a country. Describes a strategy for adopting international standards of bibliographic information exchange for developing a resource sharing facilitation database in India. A list of 22 ISO standards for information processing is included
- Source
- Library science with a slant to documentation and information studies. 32(1995) no.3, S.i-iv
-
Carini, P.; Shepherd, K.: ¬The MARC standard and encoded archival description (2004)
0.08
0.0819426 = product of:
0.1638852 = sum of:
0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 2830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030628446 = score(doc=2830,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 2830, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2830)
0.13325676 = sum of:
0.07893063 = weight(_text_:project in 2830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07893063 = score(doc=2830,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.37308553 = fieldWeight in 2830, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2830)
0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 2830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054326132 = score(doc=2830,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2830, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2830)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This case study details the evolution of descriptive practices and standards used in the Mount Holyoke College Archives and the Five College Finding Aids Access Project, discusses the relationship of Encoded Archival Description (EAD) and the MARC standard in reference to archival description, and addresses the challenges and opportunities of transferring data from one metadata standard to another. The study demonstrates that greater standardization in archival description allows archivists to respond more effectively to technological change.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.18-27
-
Guenther, R.S.: Using the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) for resource description : guidelines and applications (2004)
0.08
0.08150922 = product of:
0.16301844 = sum of:
0.04641878 = weight(_text_:library in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04641878 = score(doc=2837,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.3522223 = fieldWeight in 2837, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2837)
0.116599664 = sum of:
0.069064304 = weight(_text_:project in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.069064304 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.32644984 = fieldWeight in 2837, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2837)
0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047535364 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = 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(2/4)
- Abstract
- This paper describes the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS), its accompanying documentation and some of its applications. It reviews the MODS user guidelines provided by the Library of Congress and how they enable a user of the schema to consistently apply MODS as a metadata scheme. Because the schema itself could not fully document appropriate usage, the guidelines provide element definitions, history, relationships with other elements, usage conventions, and examples. Short descriptions of some MODS applications are given and a more detailed discussion of its use in the Library of Congress's Minerva project for Web archiving is given.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.89-98
-
McCallum, S.H.: Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC): 1975-2007 (2009)
0.08
0.07841766 = product of:
0.10455687 = sum of:
0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051698197 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 3841, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3841)
0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032486375 = score(doc=3841,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 3841, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3841)
0.0203723 = product of:
0.0407446 = sum of:
0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0407446 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = 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)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- 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.
- Content
- Digital unter: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS3-120044392, Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.
- Date
- 27. 8.2011 14:22:38
- Source
- Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
-
Guenther, R.; McCallum, S.: New metadata standards for digital resources : MODS and METS (2003)
0.07
0.07371451 = product of:
0.14742902 = sum of:
0.120629124 = weight(_text_:digital in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.120629124 = score(doc=1250,freq=8.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.61014175 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026799891 = score(doc=1250,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Metadata has taken an a new took with the advent of XML and digital resources. XML provides a new versatile structure for tagging and packaging metadata as the rapid proliferation of digital resources demands both rapidly produced descriptive data and the encoding of more types of metadata. Two emerging standards are attempting to harness these developments for library needs. The first is the Metadata Object and Description Schema (MODS), a MARC-compatible XML schema for encoding descriptive data. The second standard is the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS), a highly flexible XML schema for packaging the descriptive metadata and various other important types of metadata needed to assure the use and preservation of digital resources.
-
Smith, J.K.; Cunningham, R.L.; Sarapata, S.P.: MARC to ENC MARC : bringing the collection forward (2004)
0.07
0.071699776 = product of:
0.14339955 = sum of:
0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 2844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026799891 = score(doc=2844,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 2844, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2844)
0.116599664 = sum of:
0.069064304 = weight(_text_:project in 2844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.069064304 = score(doc=2844,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.32644984 = fieldWeight in 2844, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2844)
0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 2844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047535364 = score(doc=2844,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2844, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2844)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This paper will describe the way in which the USMARC cataloging schema is used at the Eisenhower National Clearing-house (ENC). Discussion will include how ENC MARC extensions were developed for cataloging mathematics and science curriculum resources, and how the ENC workflow is integrated into the cataloging interface. The discussion will conclude with a historical look at the in-house data transfer from ENC MARC to the current production of IEEE LOM XML encoding for record sharing and OAI compliance, required under the NSDL project guidelines.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.28-39
-
Lee, S.; Jacob, E.K.: ¬An integrated approach to metadata interoperability : construction of a conceptual structure between MARC and FRBR (2011)
0.07
0.07128137 = product of:
0.095041834 = sum of:
0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051698197 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 302, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=302)
0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022971334 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 302, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=302)
0.0203723 = product of:
0.0407446 = sum of:
0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0407446 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 302, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=302)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC) is currently the most broadly used bibliographic standard for encoding and exchanging bibliographic data. However, MARC may not fully support representation of the dynamic nature and semantics of digital resources because of its rigid and single-layered linear structure. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model, which is designed to overcome the problems of MARC, does not provide sufficient data elements and adopts a predetermined hierarchy. A flexible structure for bibliographic data with detailed data elements is needed. Integrating MARC format with the hierarchical structure of FRBR is one approach to meet this need. The purpose of this research is to propose an approach that can facilitate interoperability between MARC and FRBR by providing a conceptual structure that can function as a mediator between MARC data elements and FRBR attributes.
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
- Source
- Library resources and technical services. 55(2011) no.1, S.17-32
-
Mönch, C.; Aalberg, T.: Automatic conversion from MARC to FRBR (2003)
0.06
0.059401147 = product of:
0.07920153 = sum of:
0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043081827 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 2422, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2422)
0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01914278 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 2422, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2422)
0.016976917 = product of:
0.033953834 = sum of:
0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033953834 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = 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)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- Catalogs have for centuries been the main tool that enabled users to search for items in a library by author, title, or subject. A catalog can be interpreted as a set of bibliographic records, where each record acts as a surrogate for a publication. Every record describes a specific publication and contains the data that is used to create the indexes of search systems and the information that is presented to the user. Bibliographic records are often captured and exchanged by the use of the MARC format. Although there are numerous rdquodialectsrdquo of the MARC format in use, they are usually crafted on the same basis and are interoperable with each other -to a certain extent. The data model of a MARC-based catalog, however, is rdquo[...] extremely non-normalized with excessive replication of datardquo [1]. For instance, a literary work that exists in numerous editions and translations is likely to yield a large result set because each edition or translation is represented by an individual record, that is unrelated to other records that describe the same work.
- Source
- Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 7th European Conference, proceedings / ECDL 2003, Trondheim, Norway, August 17-22, 2003
-
MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications (2004)
0.06
0.057791512 = product of:
0.115583025 = sum of:
0.061256893 = weight(_text_:library in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061256893 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.46481284 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
0.054326132 = product of:
0.108652264 = sum of:
0.108652264 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.108652264 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1
-
Miller, D.R.: XML: Libraries' strategic opportunity (2001)
0.06
0.05645274 = product of:
0.11290548 = sum of:
0.07461992 = weight(_text_:digital in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07461992 = score(doc=1467,freq=6.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.37742734 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
0.03828556 = weight(_text_:library in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03828556 = score(doc=1467,freq=8.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
Kokabi, M.: ¬The internationalization of MARC : Pt.1: the emergence and divergence of MARC (1995)
0.06
0.056123044 = product of:
0.11224609 = sum of:
0.068930924 = weight(_text_:digital in 3813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.068930924 = score(doc=3813,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.34865242 = fieldWeight in 3813, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3813)
0.043315165 = weight(_text_:library in 3813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043315165 = score(doc=3813,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 3813, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3813)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Surveys the evolution and development of MARC formats for the digital encoding of bibliographic data from their beginnings in 1968 at the Library of Congress to the present time, with particular emphasis on the development of 17 national formats. Examines the reasons for the divergence of MARC formats from each other as well as the early and recent trends in the development of national MARC formats
- Source
- Library review. 44(1995) no.4, S.21-35
-
Miller, K.; Matthews, B.: Having the right connections : the LIMBER project (2001)
0.06
0.055448085 = product of:
0.11089617 = sum of:
0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 5933) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051698197 = score(doc=5933,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 5933, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5933)
0.059197973 = product of:
0.11839595 = sum of:
0.11839595 = weight(_text_:project in 5933) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11839595 = score(doc=5933,freq=8.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.5596283 = fieldWeight in 5933, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5933)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- As with any journey, you have to make the right connections if you want to reach your desired destination. The goal in the LIMBER project is to facilitate cross-European data analysis independent of domain, resource, language and vocabulary. The paper describes the expertise, associations, standards and architecture underlying the project deliverables designed to achieve the project's ambitious aims. - Limber (Language Independent Metadata Browsing of European Resources) is an EU (European Union) IST (Information Societies Technology) funded project that seeks to address the problems of linguistic and discipline boundaries, which, within a more integrated European environment, are becoming increasingly important. Decision-makers, researchers and journalists need to be provided with a broader, comparative picture of society across the continent; with the social science information often required to be correlated with information from domains such as environmental science, geography and health. This cross-discipline interoperability will be provided via a uniform metadata description. In addition, the provision of multilingual user interfaces and the controlled vocabulary of a multi-lingual thesaurus will make these datasets globally accessible in a range of end-user natural languages
- Source
- Journal of digital information. 1(2001) no.8
-
Gredley, E.; Hopkinson, A.: Exchanging bibliographic data (1990)
0.05
0.054025523 = product of:
0.10805105 = sum of:
0.03828556 = weight(_text_:library in 6070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03828556 = score(doc=6070,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 6070, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6070)
0.069765486 = product of:
0.13953097 = sum of:
0.13953097 = weight(_text_:project in 6070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13953097 = score(doc=6070,freq=4.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.6595283 = fieldWeight in 6070, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6070)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Imprint
- London : Library Association
- LCSH
- MINICS project
- Subject
- MINICS project
-
Coyle, K.: Future considerations : the functional library systems record (2004)
0.05
0.051093567 = product of:
0.102187134 = sum of:
0.07502407 = weight(_text_:library in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07502407 = score(doc=562,freq=12.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.56927717 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
0.027163066 = product of:
0.054326132 = sum of:
0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054326132 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.166-174
