Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0112056285 = product of:
  0.033616886 = sum of:
    0.033616886 = product of:
      0.06723377 = sum of:
        0.06723377 = weight(_text_:reports in 1086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06723377 = score(doc=1086,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.29857272 = fieldWeight in 1086, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1086)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

http://www.loc.gov/library/reports/CatalogingSpeech.pdf

0.0112056285 = product of:
  0.033616886 = sum of:
    0.033616886 = product of:
      0.06723377 = sum of:
        0.06723377 = weight(_text_:reports in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06723377 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.29857272 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The library community in Germany, Austria and German-speaking Switzerland achieved a common goal at the end of 2015. After more than two years of intensive preparation, the international standard RDA was implemented and the practical work has now started. The article describes the project in terms of the political and organizational situation in the three countries, and points out the objectives which have been achieved as well as the work which is still outstanding. An overview is given of the initial efforts to align special materials with RDA in the German-speaking countries, and the tasks associated with the specific requirements arising from the multilingual nature of Switzerland are described. Furthermore, the article reports on the current strategic developments in the international RDA committees like the RDA Steering Committee (RSC) and the European RDA Interest Group (EURIG).

0.0112056285 = product of:
  0.033616886 = sum of:
    0.033616886 = product of:
      0.06723377 = sum of:
        0.06723377 = weight(_text_:reports in 672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06723377 = score(doc=672,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.29857272 = fieldWeight in 672, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=672)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

"In den letzten anderthalb Jahren hat die DataCite Metadata Working Group an Änderungen für die neue Version des DataCite Metadatenschemas gearbeitet, um die sich entwickelnden neuen Anwendungsfälle für DataCite DOIs zu unterstützen. Diese vorgeschlagenen Aktualisierungen sind eine Reaktion auf Anfragen von Mitgliedern der DataCite-Community. Wir möchten sicherstellen, dass diese Änderungen funktionieren, d. h. dass sie die Probleme lösen, die sie lösen sollen. Zum ersten Mal überhaupt stellen wir deshalb einen RFC-Entwurf zur Kommentierung bereit, bevor wir die nächste Version (4.5) des Metadatenschemas veröffentlichen. Dieser Entwurf beinhaltet: * Unterstützung für Instrumente * Unterstützung von pre-registrations und registration reports * Unterstützung für Verlagsidentifikatoren * Neues Distribution property * Erläuterungen zum RelatedItem property * Aktualisierte PhysicalObject-Definition Details zur Rückmeldung sind in dem Request for Comments enthalten: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UyQQwtjnu-4_4zXE4TFZ74-mjLZI3NkEf8RrF0WeOdI/edit Eine Kopie des Vorschlags im PDF-Format ist ebenfalls verfügbar: https://datacite.org/documents/DataCite_Metadata_Schema_4.5_RFC.pdf Weitere Informationen finden Sie im DataCite Blog: https://doi.org/10.5438/q34f-c696."

0.009338023 = product of:
  0.02801407 = sum of:
    0.02801407 = product of:
      0.05602814 = sum of:
        0.05602814 = weight(_text_:reports in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05602814 = score(doc=3225,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.24881059 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This is a report by a group "charged to identify current trends that will have a direct impact on cataloging operations and to define possible new roles for the online catalog and cataloging staff at Indiana University." Their one general conclusion after nine months of work is that "The need for cataloging expertise within the I.U. Libraries will not be diminished in the coming years. Rather, catalogers of the future will work in the evolving environment of publishing, scholarly communication, and information technology in new expanded roles. Catalogers will need to be key players in addressing the many challenges facing the libraries and the overall management and organization of information at Indiana University." The report also identifies five strategic directions. The report is an interesting read, and taken with the explosion of related reports (e.g., Calhoun's report to the Library of Congress cited in this issue, the UC Bibliographic Services TF Report), adds yet another perspective to the kinds of changes we must foster to create better library services in a vastly changed environment.

0.009338023 = product of:
  0.02801407 = sum of:
    0.02801407 = product of:
      0.05602814 = sum of:
        0.05602814 = weight(_text_:reports in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05602814 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.24881059 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Data munging, or the work of remediating, enhancing and transforming library datasets for new or improved uses, has become more important and staff-inclusive in many library technology discussions and projects. Many times we know how we want our data to look, as well as how we want our data to act in discovery interfaces or when exposed, but we are uncertain how to make the data we have into the data we want. This article introduces and compares two library data munging tools that can help: LODRefine (OpenRefine with the DERI RDF Extension) and Catmandu. The strengths and best practices of each tool are discussed in the context of metadata munging use cases for an institution's metadata migration workflow. There is a focus on Linked Open Data modeling and transformation applications of each tool, in particular how metadataists, catalogers, and programmers can create metadata quality reports, enhance existing data with LOD sets, and transform that data to a RDF model. Integration of these tools with other systems and projects, the use of domain specific transformation languages, and the expansion of vocabulary reconciliation services are mentioned.

0.009338023 = product of:
  0.02801407 = sum of:
    0.02801407 = product of:
      0.05602814 = sum of:
        0.05602814 = weight(_text_:reports in 4386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05602814 = score(doc=4386,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.24881059 = fieldWeight in 4386, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4386)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Wir leiden an einer bedauerlichen Knappheit von Information über die Marktlage und Erfahrungen bei den bibliothekarischen DV-Systemen. Das ist jenseits des "Teiches" anders: Jedes Jahr veröffentlicht der Konsultant Marshall Breeding eine umfangreiche Marktübersicht und hält auf seiner Website eine Menge andere Berichte und interessante Übersichten bereit, z.B. "Migration Reports": https://librarytechnology.org/Library Technology Guides. Da sieht man in Tabellen, z.B. auch für Koha, wieviele Anwender von welchen Systemen insgesamt schon zu Koha gewandert sind, die Gesamtzahl ist 3.547! Zu Alma dagegen nur 1151, zu WMS 464, zu Aleph 1036. ("allegro-C" ist nicht dabei, aber es gab ja auch nie irgendwelche Anwender in USA, außer Goethe-Institute, aber die sind wohl nicht erfaßt.) Breedings neueste Marktübersicht für 2018 ist im Journal "American Libraries" veröffentlicht: https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2018/05/01/library-systems-report-2018/

0.0067738965 = product of:
  0.02032169 = sum of:
    0.02032169 = product of:
      0.04064338 = sum of:
        0.04064338 = weight(_text_:22 in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04064338 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2946, 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=2946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

17. 5.2016 19:22:40