-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications (2004)
0.05
0.050567575 = product of:
0.10113515 = sum of:
0.053599782 = weight(_text_:library in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053599782 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.40671125 = fieldWeight in 7196, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7196)
0.047535364 = product of:
0.09507073 = sum of:
0.09507073 = weight(_text_:22 in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09507073 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7196, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7196)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1
-
MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications part 2 (2004)
0.05
0.050567575 = product of:
0.10113515 = sum of:
0.053599782 = weight(_text_:library in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053599782 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.40671125 = fieldWeight in 2841, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2841)
0.047535364 = product of:
0.09507073 = sum of:
0.09507073 = weight(_text_:22 in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09507073 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2841, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2841)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2
-
McDonough, J.P.: SGML and USMARC standard : applying markup to bibliographic data (1998)
0.05
0.049779683 = product of:
0.09955937 = sum of:
0.068930924 = weight(_text_:digital in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.068930924 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.34865242 = fieldWeight in 1425, 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=1425)
0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030628446 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 1425, 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=1425)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- The recent increase in electronic publishing has led many in the library community to consider altering standards for bibliographic data to promote greater compatibility between digital works and their bibliographic representation. SGML has been prominently mentioned as a mechanism for encoding bibliographic data. Examines the problems and potential of applying SGML to to USMARC record standard, with a particular emphasis on issues of field order and repeatability, character set encoding, and obsolete fields
-
Tennant, R.: ¬A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty-first century (2004)
0.04
0.040864773 = product of:
0.081729546 = sum of:
0.043315165 = weight(_text_:library in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043315165 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 2845, 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=2845)
0.038414378 = product of:
0.076828755 = sum of:
0.076828755 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.076828755 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = 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)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
El-Sherbini, M.: Metadata and the future of cataloging (2001)
0.04
0.035239115 = product of:
0.07047823 = sum of:
0.043315165 = weight(_text_:library in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043315165 = score(doc=751,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 751, 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=751)
0.027163066 = product of:
0.054326132 = sum of:
0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054326132 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 23. 1.2007 11:22:30
- Footnote
- Auch in: Library computing 19(2000) nos.3/4, S.180-191
- Source
- Library review. 50(2001) no.1, S.16-27
-
McCallum, S.H.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) (2004)
0.03
0.028895756 = product of:
0.057791512 = sum of:
0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030628446 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 81, 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=81)
0.027163066 = product of:
0.054326132 = sum of:
0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054326132 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.82-88
-
Cundiff, M.V.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) (2004)
0.03
0.028895756 = product of:
0.057791512 = sum of:
0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030628446 = score(doc=2834,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 2834, 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=2834)
0.027163066 = product of:
0.054326132 = sum of:
0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054326132 = score(doc=2834,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2834, 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=2834)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.52-64
-
Keith, C.: Using XSLT to manipulate MARC metadata (2004)
0.03
0.026429337 = product of:
0.052858673 = sum of:
0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032486375 = score(doc=4747,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 4747, 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=4747)
0.0203723 = product of:
0.0407446 = sum of:
0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0407446 = score(doc=4747,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4747, 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=4747)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This paper describes the MARCXML architecture implemented at the Library of Congress. It gives an overview of the component pieces of the architecture, including the MARCXML schema and the MARCXML toolkit, while giving a brief tutorial on their use. Several different applications of the architecture and tools are discussed to illustrate the features of the toolkit being developed thus far. Nearly any metadata format can take advantage of the features of the toolkit, and the process of the toolkit enabling a new format is discussed. Finally, this paper intends to foster new ideas with regards to the transformation of descriptive metadata, especially using XML tools. In this paper the following conventions will be used: MARC21 will refer to MARC 21 records in the ISO 2709 record structure used today; MARCXML will refer to MARC 21 records in an XML structure.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.122-130
-
Carvalho, J.R. de; Cordeiro, M.I.; Lopes, A.; Vieira, M.: Meta-information about MARC : an XML framework for validation, explanation and help systems (2004)
0.03
0.025283787 = product of:
0.050567575 = sum of:
0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026799891 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 2848, 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=2848)
0.023767682 = product of:
0.047535364 = sum of:
0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047535364 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.131-137
-
Eden, B.L.: Metadata and librarianship : will MARC survive? (2004)
0.03
0.025283787 = product of:
0.050567575 = sum of:
0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026799891 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 4750, 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=4750)
0.023767682 = product of:
0.047535364 = sum of:
0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047535364 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4750, 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=4750)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.6-7
-
Wisser, K.M.; O'Brien Roper, J.: Maximizing metadata : exploring the EAD-MARC relationship (2003)
0.02
0.01805985 = product of:
0.0361197 = sum of:
0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01914278 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 154, 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=154)
0.016976917 = product of:
0.033953834 = sum of:
0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033953834 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 154, 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=154)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
- Source
- Library resources and technical services. 47(2003) no.2, S.71-76
-
Markup and metadata (1998)
0.02
0.017232731 = product of:
0.068930924 = sum of:
0.068930924 = weight(_text_:digital in 1835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.068930924 = score(doc=1835,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.34865242 = fieldWeight in 1835, 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=1835)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Digital publishing technologies. 3(1998) no.4, S.11-14
-
Cranefield, S.: Networked knowledge representation and exchange using UML and RDF (2001)
0.02
0.015078641 = product of:
0.060314562 = sum of:
0.060314562 = weight(_text_:digital in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060314562 = score(doc=5896,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 5896, 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=5896)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Journal of digital information. 1(2001) no.8
