Search (95 results, page 1 of 5)

0.051835872 = product of:
  0.20734349 = sum of:
    0.15024509 = weight(_text_:cooperative in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15024509 = score(doc=119,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23071818 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.6512061 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
    0.057098407 = weight(_text_:work in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057098407 = score(doc=119,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.40144894 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC): 25 Years Strong and Growing!'.

0.046667922 = product of:
  0.18667169 = sum of:
    0.12141637 = weight(_text_:cooperative in 122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12141637 = score(doc=122,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23071818 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.526254 = fieldWeight in 122, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=122)
    0.06525532 = weight(_text_:work in 122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06525532 = score(doc=122,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.4587988 = fieldWeight in 122, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=122)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

In 2015, the PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC was tasked to identify and address linked data identifiers deployment in the current MARC format. By way of a pilot test, a survey, MARC Discussion papers, Proposals, etc., the Task Group initiated and introduced changes to MARC encoding. The Task Group succeeded in laying the ground work for preparing library data transition from MARC data to a linked data, RDF environment.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC): 25 Years Strong and Growing!'.

0.041889712 = product of:
  0.16755885 = sum of:
    0.12141637 = weight(_text_:cooperative in 4927) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12141637 = score(doc=4927,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23071818 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.526254 = fieldWeight in 4927, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4927)
    0.04614248 = weight(_text_:work in 4927) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04614248 = score(doc=4927,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.32441974 = fieldWeight in 4927, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4927)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Discusses the work of the Section on Classification and Indexing, covering the working group on principles underlying subject heading languages; a state of the art survey of subject heading systems; requirements for a format for classification data; DDC edition 20; open programs at the Istanbul conference; the section newsletter; and cooperative projects

0.028001986 = product of:
  0.22401589 = sum of:
    0.22401589 = weight(_text_:hochschule in 4709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22401589 = score(doc=4709,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23689921 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.9456169 = fieldWeight in 4709, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4709)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Wissenschaft online: Elektronisches Publizieren in Bibliothek und Hochschule. Hrsg. B. Tröger

0.016785828 = product of:
  0.06714331 = sum of:
    0.04614248 = weight(_text_:work in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04614248 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.32441974 = fieldWeight in 1757, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1757)
    0.021000832 = product of:
      0.042001665 = sum of:
        0.042001665 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042001665 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1757, 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=1757)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Computers play an important role in the development of bibliographic databases. Exchange formats are needed for the generation and exchange of bibliographic data at different levels: international, national, regional and local. Discusses the formats available at national and international level such as the International Standard Exchange Format (ISO 2709); the various MARC formats and the Common Communication Format (CCF). Work on Indian standards involving the Bureau of Indian Standards, the National Information System for Science and Technology (NISSAT) and other institutions proceeds only slowly

Source

DESIDOC bulletin of information technology. 17(1997) no.5, S.17-22

0.015177046 = product of:
  0.12141637 = sum of:
    0.12141637 = weight(_text_:cooperative in 3493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12141637 = score(doc=3493,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23071818 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.526254 = fieldWeight in 3493, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3493)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Cataloguing artworks relies on the availability of classification schemes, often represented by hierarchical thesauri. Comments on the limitations of current practices and tools and proposes a new approach for the cooperative production of multilingual and multicultural classification schemes exploiting some features of the oncoming Extensible Markup Language based Web

0.01501663 = product of:
  0.12013304 = sum of:
    0.12013304 = weight(_text_:supported in 3818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12013304 = score(doc=3818,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.52346545 = fieldWeight in 3818, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3818)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Presents the results of a survey to discover the use of MARC bibliographic formats in national libraries worldwide in order to determine which formats should be supported by the MINISIS Integrated Library System. The results show USMARC (LCMARC) and UNIMARC (and their derivatives) are the most commonly implemented

0.01501663 = product of:
  0.12013304 = sum of:
    0.12013304 = weight(_text_:supported in 229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12013304 = score(doc=229,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.52346545 = fieldWeight in 229, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=229)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Extensible Markup Language (XML) attempts to overcome the limitations of HyperText Markup Language (HTML) by offering the ability to deploy more sophisticated documents anc exchange complex data over the WWW. A simplified version of SGML, XML has been developed by the WWW Consortium (W3C), is at first draft stage with the W3C and is supported by the latest version of Netscape and Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0

0.0146876 = product of:
  0.0587504 = sum of:
    0.04037467 = weight(_text_:work in 5178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037467 = score(doc=5178,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28386727 = fieldWeight in 5178, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5178)
    0.018375728 = product of:
      0.036751457 = sum of:
        0.036751457 = weight(_text_:22 in 5178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036751457 = score(doc=5178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5178, 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=5178)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This article discusses and highlights alignment issues that arise between UNIMARC Authorities Format and Resource Description and Access (RDA) regarding the creation of name and title authorities for musical works and creators. More specifically, RDA, as an implementation of the FRAD model, is compared with the UNIMARC Authorities Format (Updates 2012 and 2016) in an effort to highlight various cases where the discovery of equivalent fields between the two standards is not obvious. The study is envisioned as a first step in an ongoing process of working with the UNIMARC community throughout RDA's advancement and progression regarding the entities [musical] Work and Names.

Date

19. 3.2019 12:17:22

0.014000993 = product of:
  0.112007946 = sum of:
    0.112007946 = weight(_text_:hochschule in 6653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.112007946 = score(doc=6653,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23689921 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.47280845 = fieldWeight in 6653, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6653)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Content

Enthält die Beträge: JANKE, E.: Neun Schritte zur Mikromatisierung in Spezialbibliotheken; STEPHAN, A.: Datenbanksysteme zur Verarbeitung bibliographischer Daten; STEPHAN, A.: Anforderungen an ein EDV-System für den Einsatz in der Bibliothek der Augustana-Hochschule Neuendettelsau; KRÖNERT, M.: Einsatzbereiche mit Funktionen einer DV-Anwendung in einer Spezialbibliothek; KRAUCH, S.: Bibliographische Datenformate; KRAUCH, S.: Tübinger Institutsformat; MESTERMANN, J. u. U. POHL: Kategorienformat 'Allegro NW'; SCHMIDT, A.S.: Fraunhofer Gesellschaft: Datenformat zur Erfassung von Fachliteratur; JOCHHEIM, C. u. C. PRIEN: Katalogkonversion in einer Spezialbibliothek unter Einbeziehung von Fremdleistungen; WEBER, K.: Fakten, Zahlen und Ansprechpartner aus einem BMBW-geförderten Projekt des DBI; WEBER, K.: Checkliste für die Retrospektive Konversion

0.013477524 = product of:
  0.053910095 = sum of:
    0.040784575 = weight(_text_:work in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040784575 = score(doc=2422,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28674924 = fieldWeight in 2422, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2422)
    0.01312552 = product of:
      0.02625104 = sum of:
        0.02625104 = weight(_text_:22 in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02625104 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.013279915 = product of:
  0.10623932 = sum of:
    0.10623932 = weight(_text_:cooperative in 5174) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10623932 = score(doc=5174,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23071818 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.46047226 = fieldWeight in 5174, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5174)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

With 50 different MARC formats in use globally and 10 employed in European Union national libraries problems are created in the international supply of cataloguing data and the quality of records. UseMARCON is a cooperative project of Dutch, Portuguese, UK and German national libraries using software from Jouve Systems d'Information in France to produce a generic conversion program capable of translating bibliographic records in any ISO2709 format into any other ISO2709 format using UNIMARC as a switching format. Outlines what is required in the process of conversion; describes the functionality of the software; and lists the MARC formats with which UseMARCON can operate. The project was finished in 1997

0.013090535 = product of:
  0.05236214 = sum of:
    0.037942614 = weight(_text_:cooperative in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037942614 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23071818 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.16445437 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.014419526 = weight(_text_:work in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014419526 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.10138117 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This article presents an overview of the LEAF project (Linking and Exploring Authority Files)1, which has set out to provide a framework for international, collaborative work in the sector of authority data with respect to authority control. Elaborating the virtues of authority control in today's Web environment is an almost futile exercise, since so much has been said and written about it in the last few years.2 The World Wide Web is generally understood to be poorly structured-both with regard to content and to locating required information. Highly structured databases might be viewed as small islands of precision within this chaotic environment. Though the Web in general or any particular structured database would greatly benefit from increased authority control, it should be noted that our following considerations only refer to authority control with regard to databases of "memory institutions" (i.e., libraries, archives, and museums). Moreover, when talking about authority records, we exclusively refer to personal name authority records that describe a specific person. Although different types of authority records could indeed be used in similar ways to the ones presented in this article, discussing those different types is outside the scope of both the LEAF project and this article. Personal name authority records-as are all other "authorities"-are maintained as separate records and linked to various kinds of descriptive records. Name authority records are usually either kept in independent databases or in separate tables in the database containing the descriptive records. This practice points at a crucial benefit: by linking any number of descriptive records to an authorized name record, the records related to this entity are collocated in the database. Variant forms of the authorized name are referenced in the authority records and thus ensure the consistency of the database while enabling search and retrieval operations that produce accurate results. On one hand, authority control may be viewed as a positive prerequisite of a consistent catalogue; on the other, the creation of new authority records is a very time consuming and expensive undertaking. As a consequence, various models of providing access to existing authority records have emerged: the Library of Congress and the French National Library (Bibliothèque nationale de France), for example, make their authority records available to all via a web-based search service.3 In Germany, the Personal Name Authority File (PND, Personennamendatei4) maintained by the German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek, Frankfurt/Main) offers a different approach to shared access: within a closed network, participating institutions have online access to their pooled data. The number of recent projects and initiatives that have addressed the issue of authority control in one way or another is considerable.5 Two important current initiatives should be mentioned here: The Name Authority Cooperative (NACO) and Virtual International Authority File (VIAF).

0.011382785 = product of:
  0.09106228 = sum of:
    0.09106228 = weight(_text_:cooperative in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09106228 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23071818 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3946905 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: McCALLUM, S.: What makes a standard?; HOLLEY, R.P.: IFLA and international standards in the area of bibliographical control; STERN, B.: Internationalizing the rules in AACR2: adopting and translating AACR2 for use in non-Anglo-American and non-English-speaking cataloging environments; GUILES, K., R. EWALD u. B. TILLETT: The evolution of LCRIs: from de facto standards to ?; SPICHER, K.M.: The development of the MARC format; THOMAS, S.E.: The core bibliographic record and the program for cooperative cataloging; PALOWITCH, C. u. L. HOROWITZ: Meta-information structures for networked information resources; KUHAGEN, J.A.: Standards for name and series authority records; WILLIAMSON, N.: Standards and rules for subject access; GUENTHER, R.S.: Automating the Library of Congress Classification Scheme: implementation of the USMARC Format for Classification Data; LEAZER, G.H.: Recent research on the sequential bibliographical relationship and its implications for standards and the library catalog: an examination of serials

0.010491143 = product of:
  0.041964572 = sum of:
    0.028839052 = weight(_text_:work in 185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028839052 = score(doc=185,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.20276234 = fieldWeight in 185, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=185)
    0.01312552 = product of:
      0.02625104 = sum of:
        0.02625104 = weight(_text_:22 in 185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02625104 = score(doc=185,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 185, 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=185)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The Library of Congress, the National Library of Canada, and the British Library began discussing the harmonization of their respective MARC formats in 1994. The differences between USMARC and CAN/MARC were primarily in details rather than general specifications. Changes were made to CAN/MARC that eliminated many of the differences between CAN/MARC and the other two formats (USMARC and UKMARC). In addition, changes in USMARC that aligned USMARC and CAN/MARC were approved in 1997. The nature of the differences between UKMARC and CAN/MARC has necessitated a different process of harmonization. The differences between these two formats are many in extent, details, and approach to some requirements. Although total harmonization of USMARC-CAN/MARC with UKMARC is not feasible at this time, the British Library's program to add USMARC-CAN/MARC fields to UKMARC has increased the congruency of these formats. The National Library of Canada and the Library of Congress have begun to work on joint maintenance procedures and plan to have joint documentation.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.008156915 = product of:
  0.06525532 = sum of:
    0.06525532 = weight(_text_:work in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06525532 = score(doc=3895,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.4587988 = fieldWeight in 3895, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3895)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Describes the work of the British and European book industry communication stadards organizations BIC (Book Industry Communication) in the UK, EDItEUR (its pan-European counterpart), and BISAC (Book Industry Systems Advisory Committe). The work of the organisations enables collaboration between the publishing, bookselling, library and manufacturing sectors of the industry worldwide. Discusses Electronic Data Interchange (EDI); TeleOrdering; the international EDIFACT standard, EDI with SGML; and published lists of mandatory and recommended data elements for publishers' bibliographic databases

0.008000568 = product of:
  0.06400454 = sum of:
    0.06400454 = weight(_text_:hochschule in 1100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06400454 = score(doc=1100,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23689921 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.27017626 = fieldWeight in 1100, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1100)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Von der Vielzahl der Aspekte' die in den Referaten und der Diskussion angesprochen wurden' seien im Folgenden nur die wichtigsten (in subjektiver Auswahl und Wertung) angeführt: Trotz gemeinsamer Grundlagen sind die Unterschiede zwischen den RAK und den AACR2 beträchtlich. Dies machte ein Vergleich der beiden Regelwerke deutlich' den Prof. Margarete Payer (Hochschule der Medien Stuttgart) im Allgemeinen und Ursula Hoffmann (WLB Stuttgart) speziell für den Bereich der Zeitschriften anstellte. Betroffen sind dabei sowohl allgemeine Prinzipien als auch unzählige Details' so banal diese oft auch erscheinen mögen. Dabei sind die nach dem einen Regelwerk erstellten Titelaufnahmen nicht besser' oder 'schlechter' als die anderen - sie sind einfach 'anders'. Klar wurde freilich auch' dass die Frage RAK oder AACR?' die Thematik in unzulässiger Weise verkürzt. Die beiden Systeme muss man sich vielmehr als Endpunkte auf einer Skala vorstellen' zwischen denen vielerlei Varianten denkbar sind. Schon die Ergebnisse der bisherigen RAK2-Arbeit, die Monika Münnich (UB Heidelberg) vorstellte' sind beeindruckend. Mancher Zuhörer staunte ob der keineswegs zaghaften Einschnitte der Entwickler hin zu einem schlanken' modernen und international kompatiblen Regelwerk. Auch für die nächsten Schritte gibt es konkrete Überlegungen. Anzustreben ist dabei - wie Frau Münnich erläuterte - vor allem die Angleichung der sogenannten 'Entitäten': Es geht also nicht um Gleichmacherei an der Oberfläche (z. B. durch identische Ansetzungen)' sondern um strukturelle Anpassungen' die eine entsprechende 'Übersetzung' vom einen ins andere System ermöglichen (z. B. über virtuelle Normdateien). Die Umsetzung solcher Ideen in die Praxis dürfte freilich nicht immer einfach sein: Als besonderer Knackpunkt entpuppte sich die Individualisierung von Autorennamen, die einige Teilnehmer für zu aufwändig hielten. Einigkeit hingegen herrschte darüber' dass die Arbeit an den RAK2 schnellstmöglich wieder aufgenommen werden müsse - und zwar nicht nur bei besonders dringlichen Punkten (wie es der Beschluss vom 6. Dezember vorsieht)' sondern mit voller Kraft.

0.007492605 = product of:
  0.05994084 = sum of:
    0.05994084 = weight(_text_:work in 5441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05994084 = score(doc=5441,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.4214336 = fieldWeight in 5441, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5441)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.007137301 = product of:
  0.057098407 = sum of:
    0.057098407 = weight(_text_:work in 5579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057098407 = score(doc=5579,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.40144894 = fieldWeight in 5579, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5579)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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

0.006243838 = product of:
  0.049950704 = sum of:
    0.049950704 = weight(_text_:work in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049950704 = score(doc=3033,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.35119468 = fieldWeight in 3033, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3033)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

In this paper I describe a conceptual design of a bibliographic retrieval system that enables more thourough control of bibliographic entities. A bibliographic entity has 2 components: the intellectual work and the physical item. Users searching bibliographic retrieval systems generally do not search for a specific item, but are willing to retrieve one of several alternative manifestations of a work. However, contemporary bibliographic retrieval systems are based solely on the descriptions of items. Works are described only implcitly by collocating descriptions of items. This method has resulted in a tool that does not include important descriptive attributes of the work, e.g. information regarding its history, its genre, or its bibliographic relationships. A bibliographic relationship is an association between 2 bibliographic entities. A system evaluation methodology wasused to create a conceptual schema for a bibliographic retrieval system. The model is based upon an analysis of data elements in the USMARC Formats for Bibliographic Data. The conceptual schema describes a database comprising 2 separate files of bibliographic descriptions, one of works and the other of items. Each file consists of individual descriptive surrogates of their respective entities. the specific data content of each file is defined by a data dictionary. Data elements used in the description of bibliographic works reflect the nature of works as intellectual and linguistic objects. The descriptive elements of bibliographic items describe the physical properties of bibliographic entities. Bibliographic relationships constitute the logical strucutre of the database