Search (78 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × 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. Beall, J.: Representation DDC system in MARC 21 (2008) 0.04 
    0.038964964 = product of:
  0.13637736 = sum of:
    0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 2167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02546139 = score(doc=2167,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 2167, 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=2167)
    0.04037488 = weight(_text_:classification in 2167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037488 = score(doc=2167,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 2167, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2167)
    0.030166224 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030166224 = score(doc=2167,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 2167, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2167)
    0.04037488 = weight(_text_:classification in 2167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037488 = score(doc=2167,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 2167, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2167)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    Abstract
    Magda Heiner-Freiling argued for assignment of extra DDC numbers for improved access, including table numbers and other parts of numbers as well as fully built numbers, and for coding to identify component parts of built numbers. Changes to the MARC 21 Bibliographic format that support her approach are found in MARC Proposal No. 2008-01 Representation of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) System in MARC 21 formats. The new 083 Additional Dewey Decimal Classification Number field is used for assignment of extra Dewey numbers for improved access. The new 085 Synthesized Classification Number Components field is used to identify component parts of built Dewey numbers. This paper uses specific examples to show how the new fields can help improve access.
    Source
    New pespectives on subject indexing and classification: essays in honour of Magda Heiner-Freiling. Red.: K. Knull-Schlomann, u.a
  3. El-Sherbini, M.A.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2005-06 (2008) 0.04 
    0.037892926 = product of:
  0.13262524 = sum of:
    0.0380658 = weight(_text_:classification in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0380658 = score(doc=249,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.39808834 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
    0.04022163 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04022163 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 249, 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=249)
    0.0380658 = weight(_text_:classification in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0380658 = score(doc=249,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.39808834 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
    0.016272005 = product of:
      0.03254401 = sum of:
        0.03254401 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03254401 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    Abstract
    This paper reviews library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2005-06. It covers pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of cataloging; Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (FRBR); metadata and its applications and relation to Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC); cataloging tools and standards; authority control; and recruitment, training, and the changing role of catalogers.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  4. SKOS Core Guide (2005) 0.03 
    0.032913495 = product of:
  0.11519723 = sum of:
    0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02546139 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 4689, 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=4689)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = 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)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
    0.049360957 = product of:
      0.098721914 = sum of:
        0.098721914 = weight(_text_:schemes in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098721914 = score(doc=4689,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.6144297 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = 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)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    Abstract
    SKOS Core provides a model for expressing the basic structure and content of concept schemes such as thesauri, classification schemes, subject heading lists, taxonomies, 'folksonomies', other types of controlled vocabulary, and also concept schemes embedded in glossaries and terminologies. The SKOS Core Vocabulary is an application of the Resource Description Framework (RDF), that can be used to express a concept scheme as an RDF graph. Using RDF allows data to be linked to and/or merged with other data, enabling data sources to be distributed across the web, but still be meaningfully composed and integrated. This document is a guide using the SKOS Core Vocabulary, for readers who already have a basic understanding of RDF concepts. This edition of the SKOS Core Guide [SKOS Core Guide] is a W3C Public Working Draft. It is the authoritative guide to recommended usage of the SKOS Core Vocabulary at the time of publication.
  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. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. Condron, L.; Tittemore, C.P.: ¬... Or perhaps MARC can be reborn (2003) 0.01 
    0.013458293 = product of:
  0.09420805 = sum of:
    0.047104023 = weight(_text_:classification in 6491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047104023 = score(doc=6491,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.49260917 = fieldWeight in 6491, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6491)
    0.047104023 = weight(_text_:classification in 6491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047104023 = score(doc=6491,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.49260917 = fieldWeight in 6491, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6491)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 36(2003) no.2, S.17-20
  18. 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
  19. Salgáné, M.M.: Our electronic era and bibliographic informations computer-related bibliographic data formats, metadata formats and BDML (2005) 0.01 
    0.0109746875 = product of:
  0.07682281 = sum of:
    0.056881975 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056881975 = score(doc=3005,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.4866305 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
    0.019940836 = product of:
      0.039881673 = sum of:
        0.039881673 = weight(_text_:texts in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039881673 = score(doc=3005,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.2422848 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Using new communication technologies libraries must face continuously new questions, possibilities and expectations. This study discusses library-related aspects of our electronic era and how computer-related data formats affect bibliographic dataprocessing to give a summary of the most important results. First bibliographic formats for the exchange of bibliographic and related information in the machine-readable form between different types of computer systems were created more than 30 years ago. The evolution of information technologies leads to the improvement of computer systems. In addition to the development of computers and media types Internet has a great influence on data structure as well. Since the introduction of MARC bibliographic format, technology of data exchange between computers and between different computer systems has reached a very sophisticated stage and has contributed to the creation of new standards in this field. Today libraries work with this new infrastructure that induces many challenges. One of the most significant challenges is moving from a relatively homogenous bibliographic environment to a diverse one. Despite these challenges such changes are achievable and necessary to exploit possibilities of new metadata and technologies like the Internet and XML (Extensible Markup Language). XML is an open standard, a universal language for data on the Web. XML is nearly six-years-old standard designed for the description and computer-based management of (semi)-structured data and structured texts. XML gives developers the power to deliver structured data from a wide variety of applications and it is also an ideal format from server-to-server transfer of structured data. XML also isn't limited for Internet use and is an especially valuable tool in the field of library. In fact, XML's main strength - organizing information - makes it perfect for exchanging data between different systems. Tools that work with the XML can be used to process XML records without incurring additional costs associated with one's own software development. In addition, XML is also a suitable format for library web services. The Department of Computer-related Graphic Design and Library and Information Sciences of Debrecen University launched the BDML (Bibliographic Description Markup Language) development project in order to standardize bibliogrphic description with the help of XML.
  20. 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

Authors

Languages

  • e 49
  • d 23
  • f 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 62
  • s 8
  • m 6
  • el 5
  • n 2
  • b 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications