-
Eden, B.L.: Metadata and librarianship : will MARC survive? (2004)
0.03
0.032616116 = product of:
0.048924174 = sum of:
0.024176367 = weight(_text_:of in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024176367 = score(doc=4750,freq=12.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 4750, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4750)
0.024747808 = product of:
0.049495615 = sum of:
0.049495615 = weight(_text_:22 in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049495615 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Metadata schema and standards are now a part of the information landscape. Librarianship has slowly realized that MARC is only one of a proliferation of metadata standards, and that MARC has many pros and cons related to its age, original conception, and biases. Should librarianship continue to promote the MARC standard? Are there better metadata standards out there that are more robust, user-friendly, and dynamic in the organization and presentation of information? This special issue examines current initiatives that are actively incorporating MARC standards and concepts into new metadata schemata, while also predicting a future where MARC may not be the metadata schema of choice for the organization and description of information.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.6-7
-
Carini, P.; Shepherd, K.: ¬The MARC standard and encoded archival description (2004)
0.03
0.031880446 = product of:
0.047820665 = sum of:
0.019537456 = weight(_text_:of in 2830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019537456 = score(doc=2830,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 2830, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2830)
0.028283209 = product of:
0.056566417 = sum of:
0.056566417 = weight(_text_:22 in 2830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056566417 = score(doc=2830,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = 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(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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
-
Weber, L.B.: Reading formatting MARC AMC (1990)
0.03
0.031880446 = product of:
0.047820665 = sum of:
0.019537456 = weight(_text_:of in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019537456 = score(doc=484,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 484, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=484)
0.028283209 = product of:
0.056566417 = sum of:
0.056566417 = weight(_text_:22 in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056566417 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 484, 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=484)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This paper discusses how archivists use the MARC AMC format to exchange information about archival materials. The paper explains the modifications that MARC AMC introduced to the MARC bibliographic formats; gives examples of a record in generic USMARC AMC, RLIN AMC, and OCLC AMC; and considers the possible impact of format integration. The paper concludes with some thoughts about the changes that MARC AMC is causing in the archival profession.
- Date
- 8. 1.2007 14:22:51
- Footnote
- Simultaneously published as Describing Archival Materials: The Use of the MARC AMC Format
-
El-Sherbini, M.A.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2005-06 (2008)
0.03
0.031880446 = product of:
0.047820665 = sum of:
0.019537456 = weight(_text_:of in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019537456 = score(doc=249,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
0.028283209 = product of:
0.056566417 = sum of:
0.056566417 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056566417 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, 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=249)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This paper reviews library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2005-06. It covers pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of cataloging; Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (FRBR); metadata and its applications and relation to Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC); cataloging tools and standards; authority control; and recruitment, training, and the changing role of catalogers.
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Crook, M.: Barbara Tillett discusses cataloging rules and conceptual models (1996)
0.03
0.031211808 = product of:
0.046817712 = sum of:
0.022069903 = weight(_text_:of in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022069903 = score(doc=7683,freq=10.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 7683, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7683)
0.024747808 = product of:
0.049495615 = sum of:
0.049495615 = weight(_text_:22 in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049495615 = score(doc=7683,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7683, 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=7683)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The chief of cataloguing policy and support office at the LoC presents her views on the usefulness of conceptual modelling in determining future directions for cataloguing and the MARC format. After describing the evolution of bibliographic processes, suggests usign the entity-relationship conceptual model to step back from how we record information today and start thinking about what information really means and why we provide it. Argues that now is the time to reexamine the basic principles which underpin Anglo-American cataloguing codes and that MARC formats should be looked at to see how they can evolve towards a future, improved structure for communicating bibliographic and authority information
- Footnote
- Presentation given as part of the OCLC Office of Research Distinguished Seminar Series Jan 1997
- Source
- OCLC newsletter. 1996, no.220, S.20-22
-
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
0.031211808 = product of:
0.046817712 = sum of:
0.022069903 = weight(_text_:of in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022069903 = score(doc=2848,freq=10.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
0.024747808 = product of:
0.049495615 = sum of:
0.049495615 = weight(_text_:22 in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049495615 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This article proposes a schema for meta-information about MARC that can express at a fairly comprehensive level the syntactic and semantic aspects of MARC formats in XML, including not only rules but also all texts and examples that are conveyed by MARC documentation. It can be thought of as an XML version of the MARC or UNIMARC manuals, for both machine and human usage. The article explains how such a schema can be the central piece of a more complete framework, to be used in conjunction with "slim" record formats, providing a rich environment for the automated processing of bibliographic data.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.131-137
-
Aslanidi, M.; Papadakis, I.; Stefanidakis, M.: Name and title authorities in the music domain : alignment of UNIMARC authorities format with RDA (2018)
0.03
0.031211808 = product of:
0.046817712 = sum of:
0.022069903 = weight(_text_:of in 5178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022069903 = score(doc=5178,freq=10.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 5178, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5178)
0.024747808 = product of:
0.049495615 = sum of:
0.049495615 = weight(_text_:22 in 5178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049495615 = score(doc=5178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5178, 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=5178)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This article discusses and highlights alignment issues that arise between UNIMARC Authorities Format and Resource Description and Access (RDA) regarding the creation of name and title authorities for musical works and creators. More specifically, RDA, as an implementation of the FRAD model, is compared with the UNIMARC Authorities Format (Updates 2012 and 2016) in an effort to highlight various cases where the discovery of equivalent fields between the two standards is not obvious. The study is envisioned as a first step in an ongoing process of working with the UNIMARC community throughout RDA's advancement and progression regarding the entities [musical] Work and Names.
- Date
- 19. 3.2019 12:17:22
-
Keith, C.: Using XSLT to manipulate MARC metadata (2004)
0.03
0.031061536 = product of:
0.046592303 = sum of:
0.025379896 = weight(_text_:of in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025379896 = score(doc=4747,freq=18.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 4747, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4747)
0.021212406 = product of:
0.042424813 = sum of:
0.042424813 = weight(_text_:22 in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042424813 = score(doc=4747,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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
-
McCallum, S.H.: Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC): 1975-2007 (2009)
0.03
0.031061536 = product of:
0.046592303 = sum of:
0.025379896 = weight(_text_:of in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025379896 = score(doc=3841,freq=18.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 3841, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3841)
0.021212406 = product of:
0.042424813 = sum of:
0.042424813 = weight(_text_:22 in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042424813 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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
- Source
- Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
-
Proffitt, M.: Pulling it all together : use of METS in RLG cultural materials service (2004)
0.03
0.029490318 = product of:
0.044235475 = sum of:
0.015952265 = weight(_text_:of in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015952265 = score(doc=767,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
0.028283209 = product of:
0.056566417 = sum of:
0.056566417 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056566417 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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, M.M.: New perspectives on the shared cataloging environment and a MARC 21 shopping list (2004)
0.03
0.029490318 = product of:
0.044235475 = sum of:
0.015952265 = weight(_text_:of in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015952265 = score(doc=132,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 132, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=132)
0.028283209 = product of:
0.056566417 = sum of:
0.056566417 = weight(_text_:22 in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056566417 = score(doc=132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 132, 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=132)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This paper surveys the cataloging literature to collect problems that have been identified with the MARC 21 format. The problems are sorted into (1) problems that are not the fault of MARC 21; (2) problems that perhaps are not problems at all; (3) problems that are connected with the current shared cataloging environment; and 4) other problems with MARC 21 and vendor implementation of it. The author makes recommendations to deal with the true MARC 21 problems that remain after this analysis.
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Coetzee, H.S.: Development of SAMARC : South African format for the exchange of machine readable bibliographic descriptions (1997)
0.03
0.029088955 = product of:
0.04363343 = sum of:
0.027630134 = weight(_text_:of in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027630134 = score(doc=889,freq=12.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 889, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=889)
0.0160033 = product of:
0.0320066 = sum of:
0.0320066 = weight(_text_:science in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0320066 = score(doc=889,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 889, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=889)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The first edition of 'SAMARC: South African format for the exchange of machine readable descriptions' was published in 1982. Since then a number of important developments in various fields made it essential that the format be updated and revised. A draft second edition was made available in 1993 and the SAMARC manual was published in 1995 by the State Library. In Apr 1997 it was however decided by the South African library community to change to USMARC
- Source
- South African journal of library and information science. 65(1997) no.3, S.139-150
-
Choudhury, B.K.; Padhee, B.K.: Analytical study of CCC and AACR2, 1988 Revision : structure, features and principles (1996)
0.03
0.02907518 = product of:
0.043612767 = sum of:
0.02960988 = weight(_text_:of in 666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02960988 = score(doc=666,freq=18.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 666, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=666)
0.0140028875 = product of:
0.028005775 = sum of:
0.028005775 = weight(_text_:science in 666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028005775 = score(doc=666,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 666, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=666)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Discusses the structure of the Classified Catalogue Code (CCC) and AACR2 and briefly explaind the contents of different chapters. Enumerates the features of both schemes and analyzes the lacuna found in both the codes with regard to various features. Examines some of the canons as strictly followed by CCC and justifies their impact on AACR2 in determining the choice of access points and in rendering the entries. Points to the drawbacks of both codes and suggests revisions for international cataloguing. Identifies the influences of Dr. S.R. Ranganathan on AACR
- Source
- Herald of library science. 35(1996) nos.3/4, S.165-175
-
Riva, P.: Mapping MARC 21 linking entry fields to FRBR and Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (2004)
0.03
0.029063582 = product of:
0.043595374 = sum of:
0.022382967 = weight(_text_:of in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022382967 = score(doc=136,freq=14.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
0.021212406 = product of:
0.042424813 = sum of:
0.042424813 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042424813 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 136, 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=136)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Bibliographic relationships have taken on even greater importance in the context of ongoing efforts to integrate concepts from the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) into cataloging codes and database structures. In MARC 21, the linking entry fields are a major mechanism for expressing relationships between bibliographic records. Taxonomies of bibliographic relationships have been proposed by Tillett, with an extension by Smiraglia, and in FRBR itself. The present exercise is to provide a detailed bidirectional mapping of the MARC 21 linking fields to these two schemes. The correspondence of the Tillett taxonomic divisions to the MARC categorization of the linking fields as chronological, horizontal, or vertical is examined as well. Application of the findings to MARC format development and system functionality is discussed.
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Lee, S.; Jacob, E.K.: ¬An integrated approach to metadata interoperability : construction of a conceptual structure between MARC and FRBR (2011)
0.03
0.029063582 = product of:
0.043595374 = sum of:
0.022382967 = weight(_text_:of in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022382967 = score(doc=302,freq=14.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 302, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=302)
0.021212406 = product of:
0.042424813 = sum of:
0.042424813 = weight(_text_:22 in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042424813 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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
-
Leazer, G.H.: ¬A conceptual schema for the control of bibliographic works (1994)
0.03
0.02871291 = product of:
0.043069363 = sum of:
0.0330673 = weight(_text_:of in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0330673 = score(doc=3033,freq=44.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.40518725 = fieldWeight in 3033, product of:
6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
44.0 = termFreq=44.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3033)
0.010002062 = product of:
0.020004123 = sum of:
0.020004123 = weight(_text_:science in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020004123 = score(doc=3033,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 3033, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3033)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- In this paper I describe a conceptual design of a bibliographic retrieval system that enables more thourough control of bibliographic entities. A bibliographic entity has 2 components: the intellectual work and the physical item. Users searching bibliographic retrieval systems generally do not search for a specific item, but are willing to retrieve one of several alternative manifestations of a work. However, contemporary bibliographic retrieval systems are based solely on the descriptions of items. Works are described only implcitly by collocating descriptions of items. This method has resulted in a tool that does not include important descriptive attributes of the work, e.g. information regarding its history, its genre, or its bibliographic relationships. A bibliographic relationship is an association between 2 bibliographic entities. A system evaluation methodology wasused to create a conceptual schema for a bibliographic retrieval system. The model is based upon an analysis of data elements in the USMARC Formats for Bibliographic Data. The conceptual schema describes a database comprising 2 separate files of bibliographic descriptions, one of works and the other of items. Each file consists of individual descriptive surrogates of their respective entities. the specific data content of each file is defined by a data dictionary. Data elements used in the description of bibliographic works reflect the nature of works as intellectual and linguistic objects. The descriptive elements of bibliographic items describe the physical properties of bibliographic entities. Bibliographic relationships constitute the logical strucutre of the database
- Source
- Navigating the networks: Proceedings of the 1994 Mid-year Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Portland, Oregon, May 21-25, 1994. Ed.: D.L. Andersen et al
-
Andresen, L.: After MARC - what then? (2004)
0.03
0.02795667 = product of:
0.041935004 = sum of:
0.020722598 = weight(_text_:of in 4751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020722598 = score(doc=4751,freq=12.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 4751, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4751)
0.021212406 = product of:
0.042424813 = sum of:
0.042424813 = weight(_text_:22 in 4751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042424813 = score(doc=4751,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4751, 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=4751)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The article discusses the future of the MARC formats and outlines how future cataloguing practice and bibliographic records might look. Background and basic functionality of the MARC formats are outlined, and it is pointed out that MARC is manifest in several different formats. This is illustrated through a comparison between the MARC21 format and the Danish MARC format "danMARC2". It is argued that present cataloguing codes and MARC formats are based primarily on the Paris principles and that "functional requirements for bibliographic records" (FRBR) would serve as a more solid and user-oriented platform for future development of cataloguing codes and formats. Furthermore, it is argued that MARC is a library-specific format, which results in neither exchange with library external sectors nor inclusion of other texts being facilitated. XML could serve as the technical platform for a model for future registrations, consisting of some core data and different supplements of data necessary for different sectors and purposes.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.40-51
-
Tell, B.: On MARC and natural text searching : a review of Pauline Cochrane's Thinking grafted onto a Swedish spy on library matters (2016)
0.03
0.02748403 = product of:
0.041226044 = sum of:
0.025222747 = weight(_text_:of in 2698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025222747 = score(doc=2698,freq=10.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 2698, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2698)
0.0160033 = product of:
0.0320066 = sum of:
0.0320066 = weight(_text_:science in 2698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0320066 = score(doc=2698,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 2698, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2698)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Content
- Vgl.: Tell, B.: On MARC and natural text searching: a review of Pauline Cochrane's inspirational thinking grafted onto a Swedish spy on library matters. In: Saving the time of the library user through subject access innovation: Papers in honor of Pauline Atherton Cochrane. Ed.: W.J. Wheeler. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science 2000. S.46-58. Vgl.: DOI: 10.1080/01639374.2015.1116359.
-
MacCallum, S.H.: Harmonization of USMARC, CANMARC, and UKMARC (2000)
0.03
0.027372744 = product of:
0.041059114 = sum of:
0.02338211 = weight(_text_:of in 185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02338211 = score(doc=185,freq=22.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 185, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=185)
0.017677005 = product of:
0.03535401 = sum of:
0.03535401 = weight(_text_:22 in 185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03535401 = score(doc=185,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 185, 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=185)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The Library of Congress, the National Library of Canada, and the British Library began discussing the harmonization of their respective MARC formats in 1994. The differences between USMARC and CAN/MARC were primarily in details rather than general specifications. Changes were made to CAN/MARC that eliminated many of the differences between CAN/MARC and the other two formats (USMARC and UKMARC). In addition, changes in USMARC that aligned USMARC and CAN/MARC were approved in 1997. The nature of the differences between UKMARC and CAN/MARC has necessitated a different process of harmonization. The differences between these two formats are many in extent, details, and approach to some requirements. Although total harmonization of USMARC-CAN/MARC with UKMARC is not feasible at this time, the British Library's program to add USMARC-CAN/MARC fields to UKMARC has increased the congruency of these formats. The National Library of Canada and the Library of Congress have begun to work on joint maintenance procedures and plan to have joint documentation.
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Qin, J.: Representation and organization of information in the Web space : from MARC to XML (2000)
0.03
0.027283255 = product of:
0.04092488 = sum of:
0.016919931 = weight(_text_:of in 3918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016919931 = score(doc=3918,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 3918, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3918)
0.02400495 = product of:
0.0480099 = sum of:
0.0480099 = weight(_text_:science in 3918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0480099 = score(doc=3918,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 3918, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3918)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Source
- Informing Science. 3(2000) no.2, S.83-87
