Search (74 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  1. McBride, J.L.: Faceted subject access for music through USMARC : a case for linked fields (2000) 0.04
    0.043322887 = product of:
      0.1516301 = sum of:
        0.05092278 = weight(_text_:subject in 5403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05092278 = score(doc=5403,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 5403, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5403)
        0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 5403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02018744 = score(doc=5403,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 5403, 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=5403)
        0.060332447 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060332447 = score(doc=5403,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 5403, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5403)
        0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 5403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02018744 = score(doc=5403,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 5403, 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=5403)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    The USMARC Format for Bibliographic Description contains three fields (045, 047, and 048) designed to facilitate subject access to music materials. The fields cover three of the main aspects of subject description for music: date of composition, form or genre, and number of instruments or voices, respectively. The codes are rarely used for subject access, because of the difficulty of coding them and because false drops would result in retrieval of bibliographic records where more than one musical work is present, a situation that occurs frequently with sound recordings. It is proposed that the values of the fields be converted to natural language and that subfield 8 be used to link all access fields in a bibliographic record for greater precision in retrieval. This proposal has implications beyond music cataloging, especially for metadata and any bibliographic records describing materials containing many works and subjects.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 31(2000) no.1, S.15-30
  2. Parker, V.: MARC tags for cataloging cartographic materials (1999) 0.03
    0.031166047 = product of:
      0.14544155 = sum of:
        0.04758225 = weight(_text_:classification in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04758225 = score(doc=5317,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.49761042 = fieldWeight in 5317, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5317)
        0.05027704 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05027704 = score(doc=5317,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.43012467 = fieldWeight in 5317, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5317)
        0.04758225 = weight(_text_:classification in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04758225 = score(doc=5317,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.49761042 = fieldWeight in 5317, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5317)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Footnote
    Teil eines Themenheftes zu: "Maps and related cartographic materials: cataloging, classification, and bibliographic control"
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 27(1999) nos.1/2, S.5-9
  3. Leazer, G.H.: Recent research on the sequential bibliographic relationship and its implications for standards and the library catalog : an examination of serials (1996) 0.03
    0.031138109 = product of:
      0.14531118 = sum of:
        0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 5579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033307575 = score(doc=5579,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 5579, 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=5579)
        0.07869602 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07869602 = score(doc=5579,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.6732516 = fieldWeight in 5579, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5579)
        0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 5579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033307575 = score(doc=5579,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 5579, 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=5579)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Evaluates current research into bibliographic relationships sparked off by B.B. Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (LRTS 35(1991) no.4, S.393-405) and R.P. Smiraglia's taxonomy of the derivative bibliographic relationship (PhD dissertation, Chicago Univ., Graduate Library School, 1992). These researches provide the context for a discussion of recent research and standards work. Reevaluates research on the sequential relationship drawn from work conducted on periodicals and the implications of that research is applied to cataloguing system design. Evaluates the conceptual designs proposed by researchers such as G.H. Leazer and M. Gorman's and uses them in a critique of the USMARC format for bibliographic description
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Cataloging and Classification Standards and Rules"
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 21(1996) nos.3/4, S.205-220
  4. Ranta, J.A.: Queens Borough Public Library's Guidelines for cataloging community information (1996) 0.03
    0.02952891 = product of:
      0.10335118 = sum of:
        0.042009152 = weight(_text_:subject in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042009152 = score(doc=6523,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 6523, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6523)
        0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023552012 = score(doc=6523,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 6523, 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=6523)
        0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023552012 = score(doc=6523,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 6523, 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=6523)
        0.014238005 = product of:
          0.02847601 = sum of:
            0.02847601 = weight(_text_:22 in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02847601 = score(doc=6523,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6523, 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=6523)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    Currently, few resources exist to guide libraries in the cataloguing of community information using the new USMARC Format for Cammunity Information (1993). In developing a community information database, Queens Borough Public Library, New York City, formulated their own cataloguing procedures for applying AACR2, LoC File Interpretations, and USMARC Format for Community Information to community information. Their practices include entering corporate names directly whenever possible and assigning LC subject headings for classes of persons and topics, adding neighbourhood level geographic subdivisions. The guidelines were specially designed to aid non cataloguers in cataloguing community information and have enabled library to maintain consistency in handling corporate names and in assigning subject headings, while creating database that is highly accessible to library staff and users
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.51-69
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Boruah, B.B.; Ravikumar, S.; Gayang, F.L.: Consistency, extent, and validation of the utilization of the MARC 21 bibliographic standard in the college libraries of Assam in India (2023) 0.02
    0.017635275 = product of:
      0.08229795 = sum of:
        0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023552012 = score(doc=1183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1183, 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=1183)
        0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035193928 = score(doc=1183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 1183, 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=1183)
        0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023552012 = score(doc=1183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1183, 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=1183)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 61(2023) no.7-8, S.815-832
  12. Giordano, R.: ¬The documentation of electronic texts : using Text Encoding Initiative headers: an introduction (1994) 0.02
    0.016010279 = product of:
      0.112071946 = sum of:
        0.05224943 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05224943 = score(doc=866,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 866, 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=866)
        0.059822515 = product of:
          0.11964503 = sum of:
            0.11964503 = weight(_text_:texts in 866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.11964503 = score(doc=866,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.72685444 = fieldWeight in 866, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=866)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    Presents a general introduction to the form and functions of the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) headers and explains their relationship to the MARC record. The TEI header's main strength is that it documents electronic texts in a standard exchange format that should be understandable to both librarian cataloguers and text encoders outside of librarianship. TEI gives encoders the ability to document the the electronic text itself, its source, its encoding principles, and revisions, as well as non bibliographic characteristics of the text that can support both scholarly analysis and retrieval. Its bibliographic descriptions can be loaded into standard remote bibliographic databases, which should make electronic texts as easy to find for researchers as texts in other media. Presents a brief overview of the TEI header, the file description and ways in which the TEI headers have counterparts in MARC, the Encoding Description, the Profile Description, the Revision Description, the size and complexity of the TEI header, and the use of the TEI header to support document retrieval and analysis, with notes on some of the prospects and problems
  13. Mönch, C.; Aalberg, T.: Automatic conversion from MARC to FRBR (2003) 0.01
    0.014344085 = product of:
      0.06693906 = sum of:
        0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021217827 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 2422, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2422)
        0.035551235 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035551235 = score(doc=2422,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 2422, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2422)
        0.010170003 = product of:
          0.020340007 = sum of:
            0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.020340007 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2422, 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=2422)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Catalogs have for centuries been the main tool that enabled users to search for items in a library by author, title, or subject. A catalog can be interpreted as a set of bibliographic records, where each record acts as a surrogate for a publication. Every record describes a specific publication and contains the data that is used to create the indexes of search systems and the information that is presented to the user. Bibliographic records are often captured and exchanged by the use of the MARC format. Although there are numerous rdquodialectsrdquo of the MARC format in use, they are usually crafted on the same basis and are interoperable with each other -to a certain extent. The data model of a MARC-based catalog, however, is rdquo[...] extremely non-normalized with excessive replication of datardquo [1]. For instance, a literary work that exists in numerous editions and translations is likely to yield a large result set because each edition or translation is represented by an individual record, that is unrelated to other records that describe the same work.
    Source
    Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 7th European Conference, proceedings / ECDL 2003, Trondheim, Norway, August 17-22, 2003
  14. Weber, R.: "Functional requirements for bibliographic records" und Regelwerksentwicklung (2001) 0.01
    0.01412341 = product of:
      0.09886386 = sum of:
        0.070387855 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070387855 = score(doc=6838,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.6021745 = fieldWeight in 6838, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6838)
        0.02847601 = product of:
          0.05695202 = sum of:
            0.05695202 = weight(_text_:22 in 6838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05695202 = score(doc=6838,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6838, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6838)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Source
    Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 13(2001) H.3, S.20-22
  15. Oehlschläger, S.: Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme : Aus der 46. Sitzung am 21. und 22. April 2004 im Bibliotheksservice-Zentrum Baden-Württemberg in Konstanz (2004) 0.01
    0.013790851 = product of:
      0.04826798 = sum of:
        0.011776006 = weight(_text_:classification in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011776006 = score(doc=2434,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.12315229 = fieldWeight in 2434, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2434)
        0.017596964 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017596964 = score(doc=2434,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.15054363 = fieldWeight in 2434, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2434)
        0.011776006 = weight(_text_:classification in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011776006 = score(doc=2434,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.12315229 = fieldWeight in 2434, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2434)
        0.0071190023 = product of:
          0.014238005 = sum of:
            0.014238005 = weight(_text_:22 in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.014238005 = score(doc=2434,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2434, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2434)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Content
    - Projekt Umstieg auf internationale Formate und Regelwerke (MARC21, AACR2) Das Projekt Umstieg auf internationale Formate und Regelwerke (MARC21, AACR2) stand zum Zeitpunkt der Sitzung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft kurz vor seinem Abschluss. Im Rahmen der Veranstaltung des Standardisierungsausschusses beim 2. Leipziger Kongress für Information und Bibliothek wurden die wesentlichen Projektergebnisse vorgestellt. Aufgrund der vorliegenden Informationen gehen die Mitglieder der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme davon aus, dass das finanzielle Argument bei der anstehenden Entscheidung nicht mehr im Vordergrund stehen kann. Auch wenn davon ausgegangen wird, dass eine klare Umstiegsentscheidung durch den Standardisierungsausschuss derzeit politisch nicht durchsetzbar sei, sehen die Mitglieder der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme die Entwicklung durch die Projektergebnisse positiv. Durch die Diskussion wurden Defizite des deutschen Regelwerks und der Verbundpraxis offen gelegt und verschiedene Neuerungen angestoßen. Zur Verbesserung des Datentausches untereinander sehen die Verbundzentralen unabhängig von einer Entscheidung des Standardisierungsausschusses die Notwendigkeit, ihre Datenbestände zu homogenisieren und Hierarchien abzubauen bzw. die Verknüpfungsstrukturen zu vereinfachen. Auch die Entwicklung der Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) muss in diese Überlegungen einbezogen werden. Die Formate müssen dahingehend entwickelt werden, dass alle relevanten Informationen im Titelsatz transportiert werden können. Es wird eine Konvergenz von Regelwerk und Format angestrebt.
    - Elektronischer DDC-Dienst Im Fall der deutschen Übersetzung der Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) wurde die Idee einer Normdatei DDC-Deutsch zugunsten eines zentralen elektronischen DDC-Dienstes bei Der Deutschen Bibliothek aufgegeben. Dieser Dienst hält die übersetzten Daten bereit und stellt sie in drei verschiedenen Ausprägungen zur Verfügung: 1. Zentrales Such- und Browsingtool für Benutzer 2. Klassifikationswerkzeug für Sacherschließer 3. SOAP-Schnittstelle für den elektronischen Datenaustausch. Um die DDC künftig gewinnbringend in der Benutzung einsetzen zu können, werden Konkordanzen zu anderen Klassifikationen, insbesondere aber zur weit verbreiteten Regensburger Verbundklassifikation (RVK) benötigt. Mithilfe dieser Konkordanzen können Benutzer im OPAL Der Deutschen Bibliothek nach DDC-Notationen suchen und würden zusätzlich Ergebnisse aus den Verbünden angezeigt bekommen, die bislang nicht mit der DDC erschlossen sind. Der GBV plant eine Grunderschließung seiner Verbunddatenbank mit der DDC in 5 Ebenen. Ziel ist es, bis Ende 2005 alle Verbunddaten mit der DDC zu verbinden und damit ein bedeutendes Recherchetool zu erhalten.
  16. Tennant, R.: ¬A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty-first century (2004) 0.01
    0.011413438 = product of:
      0.079894066 = sum of:
        0.056881975 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056881975 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.4866305 = fieldWeight in 2845, 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=2845)
        0.02301209 = product of:
          0.04602418 = sum of:
            0.04602418 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04602418 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    The current library bibliographic infrastructure was constructed in the early days of computers - before the Web, XML, and a variety of other technological advances that now offer new opportunities. General requirements of a modern metadata infrastructure for libraries are identified, including such qualities as versatility, extensibility, granularity, and openness. A new kind of metadata infrastructure is then proposed that exhibits at least some of those qualities. Some key challenges that must be overcome to implement a change of this magnitude are identified.
    Date
    9.12.2005 19:22:38
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.175-181
  17. Miller, E.; Ogbuji, U.: Linked data design for the visible library (2015) 0.01
    0.011101547 = product of:
      0.07771082 = sum of:
        0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 2773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02546139 = score(doc=2773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 2773, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2773)
        0.05224943 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05224943 = score(doc=2773,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 2773, 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=2773)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    In response to libraries' frustration over their rich resources being invisible on the web, Zepheira, at the request of the Library of Congress, created BIBFRAME, a bibliographic metadata framework for cataloging. The model replaces MARC records with linked data, promoting resource visibility through a rich network of links. In place of formal taxonomies, a small but extensible vocabulary streamlines metadata efforts. Rather than using a unique bibliographic record to describe one item, BIBFRAME draws on the Dublin Core and the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) to generate formalized descriptions of Work, Instance, Authority and Annotation as well as associations between items. Zepheira trains librarians to transform MARC records to BIBFRAME resources and adapt the vocabulary for specialized needs, while subject matter experts and technical experts manage content, site design and usability. With a different approach toward data modeling and metadata, previously invisible resources gain visibility through linking.
  18. Coyle, K.: Future considerations : the functional library systems record (2004) 0.01
    0.010450569 = product of:
      0.07315398 = sum of:
        0.056881975 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056881975 = score(doc=562,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.4866305 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
        0.016272005 = product of:
          0.03254401 = sum of:
            0.03254401 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03254401 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    The paper performs a thought experiment on the concept of a record based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records and library system functions, and concludes that if we want to develop a functional bibliographic record we need to do it within the context of a flexible, functional library systems record structure. The article suggests a new way to look at the library systems record that would allow libraries to move forward in terms of technology but also in terms of serving library users.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.166-174
  19. Lee, S.; Jacob, E.K.: ¬An integrated approach to metadata interoperability : construction of a conceptual structure between MARC and FRBR (2011) 0.01
    0.010362351 = product of:
      0.07253645 = sum of:
        0.060332447 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060332447 = score(doc=302,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 302, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=302)
        0.0122040035 = product of:
          0.024408007 = sum of:
            0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.024408007 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = 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)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    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
  20. Crook, M.: Barbara Tillett discusses cataloging rules and conceptual models (1996) 0.01
    0.009144248 = product of:
      0.06400973 = sum of:
        0.04977173 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04977173 = score(doc=7683,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 7683, 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=7683)
        0.014238005 = product of:
          0.02847601 = sum of:
            0.02847601 = weight(_text_:22 in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02847601 = score(doc=7683,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = 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)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    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
    Source
    OCLC newsletter. 1996, no.220, S.20-22

Years

Languages

  • e 45
  • d 21
  • f 2
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 63
  • m 7
  • s 5
  • el 2
  • x 2
  • b 1
  • r 1
  • More… Less…