-
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
-
Dinberg, D.J.: DOBIS and the Canadian Union Catalogue (1988)
0.02
0.023724673 = product of:
0.11071514 = sum of:
0.026916584 = weight(_text_:classification in 398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026916584 = score(doc=398,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 398, 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=398)
0.056881975 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056881975 = score(doc=398,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.4866305 = fieldWeight in 398, 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=398)
0.026916584 = weight(_text_:classification in 398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026916584 = score(doc=398,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 398, 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=398)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- The Canadian federal government's version of the DOBIS database, and the operation of the Canadian Union Catalogue as a subset of that database, are explained. DOBIS' versatility stems from its ability to handle bibliographic records of varying levels of fullness and definition within a shared file. The Union Catalogue's experience with minimal level records as contributions to DOBIS is detailed.
- Footnote
- Simultaneously published as National and International Bibliographic Databases: Trends and Prospects
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 8(1988) nos.3/4, S.165-186
-
Riva, P.: Mapping MARC 21 linking entry fields to FRBR and Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (2004)
0.02
0.02317635 = product of:
0.10815629 = sum of:
0.02849856 = product of:
0.05699712 = sum of:
0.05699712 = weight(_text_:schemes in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05699712 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.35474116 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.06745373 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06745373 = score(doc=136,freq=10.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5770728 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
0.0122040035 = product of:
0.024408007 = sum of:
0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024408007 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- 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
-
Conklin, C.E.: Australia: The ABN, ANB, AUSMARC and the National Library (1988)
0.02
0.023156079 = product of:
0.1080617 = sum of:
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 420, 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=420)
0.060957674 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060957674 = score(doc=420,freq=6.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.52149844 = fieldWeight in 420, 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=420)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 420, 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=420)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- Australian libraries have kept up with the latest technology and innovation in cataloging. The Australian Bibliographic Network is a shared cataloging-based national bibliographic utility. This essay delves into the relationships of the ABN, the Australian National Bibliography, AUSMARC, and the role of the Australian National Library in the creation of these elements of computerized cataloging in that country. It also discusses some of the policies and procedures utilized by Australian libraries in their automated cataloging environment, as well as looking at some of the environmental attitudes arising from the change to automated cataloging. Finally, the essay concludes with an outline of some of the similarities and differences between the AUSMARC and USMARC formats.
- Footnote
- Simultaneously published as National and International Bibliographic Databases: Trends and Prospects
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 8(1988) nos.3/4, S.141-153
-
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
-
Woods, E.W.; IFLA Section on classification and Indexing and Indexing and Information Technology; Joint Working Group on a Classification Format: Requirements for a format of classification data : Final report, July 1996 (1996)
0.02
0.02307136 = product of:
0.16149952 = sum of:
0.08074976 = weight(_text_:classification in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08074976 = score(doc=3008,freq=8.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.8444729 = fieldWeight in 3008, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3008)
0.08074976 = weight(_text_:classification in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08074976 = score(doc=3008,freq=8.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.8444729 = fieldWeight in 3008, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3008)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Object
- USMARC for classification data
-
Spicher, K.M.: ¬The development of the MARC format (1996)
0.02
0.021816231 = product of:
0.10180908 = sum of:
0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 5574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033307575 = score(doc=5574,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 5574, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5574)
0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035193928 = score(doc=5574,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 5574, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5574)
0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 5574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033307575 = score(doc=5574,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 5574, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5574)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- The use of computerized cataloguing data requires a commitment on the part of libraries to the standardization of data elements and record formats. Early computerized formats were initiated by several research libraries to serve the needs of particular university systems. In developing MARC, the LoC drew on the experiences of these libraries in establishing a standard acceptable to the research library community for the interchange of bibliographic data. Discusses early computerized formats influencing MARC, the origins of the MARC Pilot Project, and design factors influencing the evolution of the format through MARC2. Research was based on primary sources documenting the early history of MARC, including unpublished documents in the LoC archives
- Footnote
- Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Cataloging and Classification Standards and Rules"
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 21(1996) nos.3/4, S.75-90
-
Concise UNIMARC Classification Format : Draft 5 (20000125) (2000)
0.02
0.021751886 = product of:
0.1522632 = sum of:
0.0761316 = weight(_text_:classification in 4421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0761316 = score(doc=4421,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.7961767 = fieldWeight in 4421, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4421)
0.0761316 = weight(_text_:classification in 4421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0761316 = score(doc=4421,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.7961767 = fieldWeight in 4421, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4421)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Object
- UNIMARC for classification data
-
Willer, M.: UNIMARC format for authority records : its scope and issues for authority control (2004)
0.02
0.02075909 = product of:
0.09687576 = sum of:
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=5670,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5670, 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=5670)
0.04977173 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04977173 = score(doc=5670,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 5670, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5670)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=5670,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5670, 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=5670)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- The IFLA standard for authority data, UNIMARC authorities format, is described in the light of developments of IFLA standards in the field of authority files, IFLA's activities in promoting the exchange of name authority records within the program of Universal Bibliographic Control and the design of the UNIMARC format for bibliographic records that established principles for its structure and design. The second revised and enlarged edition, UNIMARC Manual: Authorities Format, is described. Particular attention is paid to the methods for expressing relationships between different forms of headings, and relationships between different languages and scripts of headings. The maintenance of the format and sources for its revision are described.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 38(2004) nos.3/4, S.xx-xx
-
Recommandation 995 (1995)
0.02
0.020154601 = product of:
0.0940548 = sum of:
0.026916584 = weight(_text_:classification in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026916584 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 4689, 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=4689)
0.04022163 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04022163 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
0.026916584 = weight(_text_:classification in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026916584 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 4689, 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=4689)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- Text of a document produced by the French Librarians Association, Federation of Library Software Users and the Association of Directors of Departmental Lending Libraries, setting out standards for local data included in bibliographic notices in UNIMARC format. These are specifically intended for loan copies sent from central to branch libraries, for integration into the local catalogue. The subfields (MARC field 995) are: origin of document; bar code; classification code and loan details; details of contents, support etc; and notes on physical features
-
Chandrakar, R.: Mapping CCF to MARC21 : an experimental approach (2001)
0.02
0.019848065 = product of:
0.09262431 = sum of:
0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 5437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02018744 = score(doc=5437,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 5437, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5437)
0.05224943 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05224943 = score(doc=5437,freq=6.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 5437, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5437)
0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 5437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02018744 = score(doc=5437,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 5437, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5437)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- The purpose of this article is to raise and address a number of issues pertaining to the conversion of Common Communication Format (CCF) into MARC21. In this era of global resource sharing, exchange of bibliographic records from one system to another is imperative in today's library communities. Instead of using a single standard to create machine-readable catalogue records, more than 20 standards have emerged and are being used by different institutions. Because of these variations in standards, sharing of resources and transfer of data from one system to another among the institutions locally and globally has become a significant problem. Addressing this problem requires keeping in mind that countries such as India and others in southeast Asia are using the CCF as a standard for creating bibliographic cataloguing records. This paper describes a way to map the bibliographic catalogue records from CCF to MARC21, although 100% mapping is not possible. In addition, the paper describes an experimental approach that enumerates problems that may occur during the mapping of records/exchanging of records and how these problems can be overcome.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 33(2001) no.1, S.33-49
-
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)
0.02
0.019066125 = product of:
0.13346288 = sum of:
0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035193928 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
0.09826894 = sum of:
0.069792934 = weight(_text_:texts in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.069792934 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.42399842 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
0.02847601 = weight(_text_:22 in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02847601 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- 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
-
Tell, B.: On MARC and natural text searching : a review of Pauline Cochrane's Thinking grafted onto a Swedish spy on library matters (2016)
0.02
0.018810362 = product of:
0.08778169 = sum of:
0.033948522 = weight(_text_:subject in 2698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033948522 = score(doc=2698,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 2698, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2698)
0.026916584 = weight(_text_:classification in 2698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026916584 = score(doc=2698,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 2698, 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=2698)
0.026916584 = weight(_text_:classification in 2698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026916584 = score(doc=2698,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 2698, 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=2698)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- 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.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 54(2016) no.1, S.87-99
-
Andresen, L.: After MARC - what then? (2004)
0.02
0.01812743 = product of:
0.126892 = sum of:
0.042661484 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042661484 = score(doc=4751,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 4751, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4751)
0.08423052 = sum of:
0.059822515 = weight(_text_:texts in 4751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059822515 = score(doc=4751,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.36342722 = fieldWeight in 4751, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4751)
0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 4751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024408007 = score(doc=4751,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- 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
-
Xu, A.; Hess, K.; Akerman, L.: From MARC to BIBFRAME 2.0 : Crosswalks (2018)
0.02
0.017983451 = product of:
0.08392277 = sum of:
0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 5172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016822865 = score(doc=5172,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 5172, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5172)
0.05027704 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05027704 = score(doc=5172,freq=8.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.43012467 = fieldWeight in 5172, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5172)
0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 5172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016822865 = score(doc=5172,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 5172, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5172)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- One of the big challenges facing academic libraries today is to increase the relevance of the libraries to their user communities. If the libraries can increase the visibility of their resources on the open web, it will increase the chances of the libraries to reach to their user communities via the user's first search experience. BIBFRAME and library Linked Data will enable libraries to publish their resources in a way that the Web understands, consume Linked Data to enrich their resources relevant to the libraries' user communities, and visualize networks across collections. However, one of the important steps for transitioning to BIBFRAME and library Linked Data involves crosswalks, mapping MARC fields and subfields across data models and performing necessary data reformatting to be in compliance with the specifications of the new model, which is currently BIBFRAME 2.0. This article looks into how the Library of Congress has mapped library bibliographic data from the MARC format to the BIBFRAME 2.0 model and vocabulary published and updated since April 2016, available from http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/index.html based on the recently released conversion specifications and converter, developed by the Library of Congress with input from many community members. The BIBFRAME 2.0 standard and conversion tools will enable libraries to transform bibliographic data from MARC into BIBFRAME 2.0, which introduces a Linked Data model as the improved method of bibliographic control for the future, and make bibliographic information more useful within and beyond library communities.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 56(2018) no.2/3, S.224-250
-
Guenther, R.S.: ¬The Library of Congress Classification in the USMARC format (1994)
0.02
0.017803647 = product of:
0.12462553 = sum of:
0.062312763 = weight(_text_:classification in 8864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.062312763 = score(doc=8864,freq=14.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.6516607 = fieldWeight in 8864, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8864)
0.062312763 = weight(_text_:classification in 8864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.062312763 = score(doc=8864,freq=14.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.6516607 = fieldWeight in 8864, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8864)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- The paper reviews the development of the USMARC Format for Classification Data, a standard for communication of classification data in machine-readable form. It considers the uses for online classification schedules, both for technical services and reference functions and gives an overview of the format specification details of data elements used and of the structure of the records. The paper describes an experiment conducted at the Library of Congress to test the format as well as the development of the classification database encompassing the LCC schedules. Features of the classification system are given. The LoC will complete its conversion of the LCC in mid-1995
- Object
- USMARC for classification data
-
Fiander, D. J.: Applying XML to the bibliographic description (2001)
0.02
0.017793506 = product of:
0.08303636 = sum of:
0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 5441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02018744 = score(doc=5441,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 5441, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5441)
0.042661484 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042661484 = score(doc=5441,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 5441, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5441)
0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 5441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02018744 = score(doc=5441,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 5441, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5441)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- Over the past few years there has been a significant amount of work in the area of cataloging internet resources, primarily using new metadata standards like the Dublin Core, but there has been little work on applying new data description formats like SGML and XML to traditional cataloging practices. What little work has been done in the area of using SGML and XML for traditional bibliographic description has primarily been based on the concept of converting MARC tagging into XML tagging. I suggest that, rather than attempting to convert existing MARC tagging into a new syntax based on SGML or XML, a more fruitful possibility is to return to the cataloging standards and describe their inherent structure, learning from how MARC has been used successfully in modern OPAC while attempting to avoid MARC's rigid field-based restrictions.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 33(2001) no.2, S.17-28
-
Sandberg-Fox, A.M.: ¬The microcomputer revolution (2001)
0.02
0.017635275 = product of:
0.08229795 = sum of:
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=5409,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5409, 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=5409)
0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035193928 = score(doc=5409,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 5409, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5409)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=5409,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5409, 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=5409)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- With the introduction of the microcomputer in the 1980s, a revolution of sorts was initiated. In libraries this was evidenced by the acquisition of personal computers and the software to run on them. All that catalogers needed were cataloging rules and a MARC format to ensure their bibliographic control. However, little did catalogers realize they were dealing with an industry that introduced rapid technological changes, which effected continual revision of existing rules and the formulation of special guidelines to deal with the industry's innovative products. This article focuses on the attempts of libraries and organized cataloging groups to develop the Chapter 9 descriptive cataloging rules in AACR2; it highlights selected events and includes cataloging examples that illustrate the evolution of the chapter.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 31(2001) no.2, S.85-100
-
Johnson, B.C.: XML and MARC : which is "right"? (2001)
0.02
0.017635275 = product of:
0.08229795 = sum of:
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=5423,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5423, 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=5423)
0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035193928 = score(doc=5423,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 5423, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5423)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=5423,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5423, 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=5423)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- This article explores recent discussions about appropriate mark-up conventions for library information intended for use on the World Wide Web. In particular, the question of whether the MARC 21 format will continue to be useful and whether the time is right for a full-fledged conversion effort to XML is explored. The author concludes that the MARC format will be relevant well into the future, and its use will not hamper access to bibliographic information via the web. Early XML exploratory efforts carried out at the Stanford University's Lane Medical Library are reported on. Although these efforts are a promising start, much more consultation and investigation is needed to arrive at broadly acceptable standards for XML library information encoding and retrieval.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 32(2001) no.1, S.81-90
-
Samples, J.; Bigelow, I.: MARC to BIBFRAME : converting the PCC to Linked Data (2020)
0.02
0.017635275 = product of:
0.08229795 = sum of:
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=119,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 119, 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=119)
0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035193928 = score(doc=119,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=119,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 119, 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=119)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- The Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) has formal relationships with the Library of Congress (LC), Share-VDE, and Linked Data for Production Phase 2 (LD4P2) for work on Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME), and PCC institutions have been very active in the exploration of MARC to BIBFRAME conversion processes. This article will review the involvement of PCC in the development of BIBFRAME and examine the work of LC, Share-VDE, and LD4P2 on MARC to BIBFRAME conversion. It will conclude with a discussion of areas for further exploration by the PCC leading up to the creation of PCC conversion specifications and PCC BIBFRAME data.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 58(2020) no.3/4, S.403-417
