Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

Did you mean:
precises%3a%2fdocuments %2f subject classification schemes%3a bliss%2c henry evelyn %2f bliss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 2
precises%3a%2f_documents %2f subject classification schemes%3a bliss%2c henry evelyn %2f bliss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 2
precises%3a%2fdocuments %2f subject classification schemes%3a bliss%2c heery evelyn %2f bliss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 2
precises%3a%2fdocuments %2f subject classification schemes%3a bliss%2c henry evelyn %2f bloss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 2
precises%3a%2fdocuments %2f subject classification schemes%3a bloss%2c henry evelyn %2f bliss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 2

Aliprand, J.M.: Linking of alternate graphic representation in USMARC authority records (1993) 0.02

0.023724673 = product of:
  0.11071514 = sum of:
    0.026916584 = weight(_text_:classification in 8341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026916584 = score(doc=8341,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 8341, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8341)
    0.056881975 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 8341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056881975 = score(doc=8341,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.4866305 = fieldWeight in 8341, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8341)
    0.026916584 = weight(_text_:classification in 8341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026916584 = score(doc=8341,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 8341, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8341)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract: Discusses the facilities in USMARC for linking fields containing non Roman scripts to their Romanized counterparts. In USMARC authority records, the 880 field: Alternate graphic representation (which contains the authentic non Roman text); is linked to the field that contains the same information in romanized form. The 880 field was added to the USMARC Format for Bibliographic Data in 1984 and to the USMARC Format for Authority Data in 1991. The new data elements in the Authority Format are modeled on those of the Bibliographic Format
Source: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 18(1993) no.1, S.27-62

Aliprand, J.M.: Linkage in USMARC bibliographic records (1993) 0.02

0.023156079 = product of:
  0.1080617 = sum of:
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=544,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 544, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=544)
    0.060957674 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060957674 = score(doc=544,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.52149844 = fieldWeight in 544, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=544)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=544,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 544, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=544)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract: USMARC records that contain non Roman scripts exhibit 2 types of linkage between the Latin script fields and their alternate graphic representation (the non Roman text): linkage based on systematic romanization, and linkage between names for the same person, place or thing. The lack of rules for linkage inhibits copy cataloging and causes inconsistency on record displays. To determine an unequivocal basis for linkage, 4 types of field association in bibliographic records are examined: hierarchy of components; functional equivalence; semantic equivalence; and systematic romanization. Concludes that semantic equivalence is the ideal basis for linkage and can be accomodated by the current structure of the USMARC format for bibliographic data
Source: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 16(1993) no.1, S.5-38