Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Kokabi, M."
  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  1. Kokabi, M.: ¬The internationalization of MARC : Pt.4: UNIMARC, some formats based on it and some other MARC formats (1996) 0.01 
    0.014453835 = product of:
  0.06504226 = sum of:
    0.024573447 = weight(_text_:of in 7191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024573447 = score(doc=7191,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 7191, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7191)
    0.04046881 = weight(_text_:systems in 7191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04046881 = score(doc=7191,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 7191, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7191)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Discusses some of the problems associated with the requirements and prospects for international standards for the exchange of bibliographic records in machine readable form, the various roles of national bibliographies and national libraries; the lack of international cataloguing standards and of an international subject control systems; language difficulties; character sets and codes, and non roman alphabets. Explains how these problems lie behind the development of various MARC formats out of UNIMARC. In this final part of a 4 part article describes the formats for South Africa, Taiwan, Japan, Croatia and Germany and indicates the points of difference and the influence of local requirements
    Source
    OCLC systems and services. 12(1996) no.4, S.20-37
  2. Kokabi, M.: ¬The internationalization of MARC : Pt.3: some MARC formats based on UKMARC (1996) 0.01 
    0.013788608 = product of:
  0.062048733 = sum of:
    0.021169065 = weight(_text_:of in 6725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021169065 = score(doc=6725,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 6725, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6725)
    0.040879667 = weight(_text_:systems in 6725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040879667 = score(doc=6725,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.339541 = fieldWeight in 6725, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6725)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Surveys the development of various MARC formats out of UKMARC. Describes the formats for Australia, Thailand, Italy and Singapore, indicating their main points of difference and local requirements
    Source
    OCLC systems and services. 12(1996) no.3, S.8-11
  3. Kokabi, M.: ¬The internationalization of MARC : Pt.2: some MARC formats based on USMARC (1996) 0.01 
    0.01315836 = product of:
  0.059212618 = sum of:
    0.018332949 = weight(_text_:of in 6723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018332949 = score(doc=6723,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 6723, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6723)
    0.040879667 = weight(_text_:systems in 6723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040879667 = score(doc=6723,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.339541 = fieldWeight in 6723, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6723)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Surveys the development of various MARC formats out of USMARC. Considers the formats for Canada, France, Spain and Indonesia, Indicating their main differences and local requirements
    Source
    OCLC systems and services. 12(1996) no.2, S.21-26
  4. Kokabi, M.: ¬The internationalization of MARC : Pt.1: the emergence and divergence of MARC (1996) 0.01 
    0.012589732 = product of:
  0.056653794 = sum of:
    0.023950063 = weight(_text_:of in 6726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023950063 = score(doc=6726,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 6726, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6726)
    0.03270373 = weight(_text_:systems in 6726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03270373 = score(doc=6726,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 6726, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6726)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Surveys the evolution and development of MARC formats for the digital encoding of bibliographic data from their beginnings in 1968 at the Library of Congress to the present time, with particular emphasis on the development of 17 national formats. Examines the reasons for the divergence of MARC formats from each other as well as the early and recent trends in the development of national MARC formats
    Source
    OCLC systems and services. 12(1996) no.1, S.21-31
  5. Kokabi, M.: ¬The internationalization of MARC : Pt.4: UNIMARC, some formats based on it and some other MARC formats (1995) 0.01 
    0.011298507 = product of:
  0.050843284 = sum of:
    0.022227516 = weight(_text_:of in 3811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022227516 = score(doc=3811,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 3811, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3811)
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 3811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=3811,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 3811, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3811)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Discusses the problems associated with the requirements for international standards for the exchange of bibliographic records in machine readable form, including the roles of national bibliographies and national libraries; a lack of international cataloguing standards and subject control systems; language difficulties; character sets and codes, and non roman alphabets. Suggests that these problems lie behind the development of various MARC formats out of UNIMARC. In this final part of a 4 part article describes the formats for South Africa, Taiwan, Japan, Croatia and Germany and indicates the points of difference and the influence of local requirements
  6. Kokabi, M.: Is the future of MARC assured? (1996) 0.01 
    0.011030885 = product of:
  0.049638983 = sum of:
    0.016935252 = weight(_text_:of in 6724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016935252 = score(doc=6724,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 6724, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6724)
    0.03270373 = weight(_text_:systems in 6724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03270373 = score(doc=6724,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 6724, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6724)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    The MARC machine readable catalogue is now more than 20 years old. It has been, and still is, criticized from different points of view. Reviews some positive and negative opinions on MARC as expressed by different sectors of the profession, and considers its future in relation to technological innovations. MARC remains a valuable means of communicating bibliographical information
    Source
    OCLC systems and services. 12(1996) no.2, S.33-36
  7. Kokabi, M.: ¬The internationalization of MARC : Pt.1: the emergence and divergence of MARC (1995) 0.00 
    0.002661118 = product of:
  0.023950063 = sum of:
    0.023950063 = weight(_text_:of in 3813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023950063 = score(doc=3813,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 3813, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3813)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Surveys the evolution and development of MARC formats for the digital encoding of bibliographic data from their beginnings in 1968 at the Library of Congress to the present time, with particular emphasis on the development of 17 national formats. Examines the reasons for the divergence of MARC formats from each other as well as the early and recent trends in the development of national MARC formats
  8. Kokabi, M.: ¬The Iranian adaptation of UNIMARC (1997) 0.00 
    0.002661118 = product of:
  0.023950063 = sum of:
    0.023950063 = weight(_text_:of in 537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023950063 = score(doc=537,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 537, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=537)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Outline of a thesis produced at the University of New South Wales School of Information, Library and Archive Studies, the first serious study of MARC for Iran despite 12 years of the presence of computers in Iranian libraries. Considers the various MARC formats, reasons for choosing UNIMARC, and the use of the Farsi language in machines. Lists the modifications required to UNIMARC for use in the Iranian National Bibliography
  9. Kokabi, M.: ¬The internationalization of MARC : Pt.3: some MARC formats based on UKMARC (1995) 0.00 
    0.0026297483 = product of:
  0.023667734 = sum of:
    0.023667734 = weight(_text_:of in 6945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023667734 = score(doc=6945,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.38633084 = fieldWeight in 6945, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6945)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Surveys the development of various MARC formats out of UKMARC. Considers the formats for Australia, Thailand, Italy and Singapore. Indicates the main points of difference between them and the influence of local requirements on their development
  10. Kokabi, M.: ¬The internationalization of MARC : Pt.2: some MARC formats based on USMARC (1995) 0.00 
    0.0026297483 = product of:
  0.023667734 = sum of:
    0.023667734 = weight(_text_:of in 3812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023667734 = score(doc=3812,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.38633084 = fieldWeight in 3812, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3812)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Surveys the development of various MARC formats out of USMARC. Considers the formats for Canada, France, Spain and Indonesia. Indicates the main points of difference between them and the influence of local requirements on their development
  11. Kokabi, M.: Is the future of MARC assured? (1996) 0.00 
    0.002304596 = product of:
  0.020741362 = sum of:
    0.020741362 = weight(_text_:of in 4676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020741362 = score(doc=4676,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 4676, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4676)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    MARC is now more than 20 years old. It has been, and still is, criticized from different point of view. Reviews some of the positive and negative opinions on MARC, as expressed by different sectors of the profession, and studies the future of MARC in relation to technological innovations. Concludes that MARC remains a valuable means of communicating bibliographical information