Search (69 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  1. Carini, P.; Shepherd, K.: ¬The MARC standard and encoded archival description (2004) 0.05 
    0.04975329 = product of:
  0.14925987 = sum of:
    0.097760476 = weight(_text_:relationship in 2830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.097760476 = score(doc=2830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.42645246 = fieldWeight in 2830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2830)
    0.05149939 = weight(_text_:22 in 2830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05149939 = score(doc=2830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2830, 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=2830)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    This case study details the evolution of descriptive practices and standards used in the Mount Holyoke College Archives and the Five College Finding Aids Access Project, discusses the relationship of Encoded Archival Description (EAD) and the MARC standard in reference to archival description, and addresses the challenges and opportunities of transferring data from one metadata standard to another. The study demonstrates that greater standardization in archival description allows archivists to respond more effectively to technological change.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.18-27
  2. Crook, M.: Barbara Tillett discusses cataloging rules and conceptual models (1996) 0.04 
    0.04353413 = product of:
  0.13060239 = sum of:
    0.08554042 = weight(_text_:relationship in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08554042 = score(doc=7683,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.3731459 = fieldWeight in 7683, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7683)
    0.045061965 = weight(_text_:22 in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045061965 = score(doc=7683,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7683, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7683)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    The chief of cataloguing policy and support office at the LoC presents her views on the usefulness of conceptual modelling in determining future directions for cataloguing and the MARC format. After describing the evolution of bibliographic processes, suggests usign the entity-relationship conceptual model to step back from how we record information today and start thinking about what information really means and why we provide it. Argues that now is the time to reexamine the basic principles which underpin Anglo-American cataloguing codes and that MARC formats should be looked at to see how they can evolve towards a future, improved structure for communicating bibliographic and authority information
    Source
    OCLC newsletter. 1996, no.220, S.20-22
  3. Wisser, K.M.; O'Brien Roper, J.: Maximizing metadata : exploring the EAD-MARC relationship (2003) 0.03 
    0.031095807 = product of:
  0.093287416 = sum of:
    0.061100297 = weight(_text_:relationship in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061100297 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.26653278 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
    0.03218712 = weight(_text_:22 in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03218712 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 154, 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=154)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  4. Dextre Clarke, S.G.; Will, L.D.; Cochard, N.: ¬The BS8723 thesaurus data model and exchange format, and its relationship to SKOS (2008) 0.03 
    0.028513474 = product of:
  0.17108084 = sum of:
    0.17108084 = weight(_text_:relationship in 6051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17108084 = score(doc=6051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.7462918 = fieldWeight in 6051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6051)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  5. Oehlschläger, S.: Umstieg auf MARC21 (2007) 0.03 
    0.027082993 = product of:
  0.16249795 = sum of:
    0.16249795 = weight(_text_:datenmodell in 555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16249795 = score(doc=555,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3738479 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.43466327 = fieldWeight in 555, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=555)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Content
    Kernelement des Umstiegs ist die Entwicklung einer verbindlichen Gesamt-Konkordanz von MAB2 nach MARC 21. Im Jahr 2005 beschäftigte sich die Expertengruppe Datenformate eingehend mit dem Zielformat MARC 21 und dem zugrunde liegenden Datenmodell. Ins Zentrum der Aufmerksamkeit rückten die Analyse und Bewertung von Unterschieden zwischen MAB2 und MARC 21 und die Suche nach Lösungen, damit die vorhandenen Daten möglichst ohne Verlust transportiert werden können. Ein wesentlicher Punkt war dabei das Mapping mehrbändiger Werke, die in MAB2 anders abgebildet werden als in MARC 21. Die Festlegungen der Expertengruppe Datenformate zur Abbildung von mehrbändigen begrenzten Werken in MARC 21 mit Beispielen sind bereits im Dezember auf der Homepage der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek veröffentlicht worden."
  6. Leazer, G.H.: Recent research on the sequential bibliographic relationship and its implications for standards and the library catalog : an examination of serials (1996) 0.02 
    0.024693392 = product of:
  0.14816035 = sum of:
    0.14816035 = weight(_text_:relationship in 5579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14816035 = score(doc=5579,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.6463077 = fieldWeight in 5579, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5579)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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
  7. Jimenez, V.O.R.: Nuevas perspectivas para la catalogacion : metadatos ver MARC (1999) 0.02 
    0.018207785 = product of:
  0.10924671 = sum of:
    0.10924671 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10924671 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 5743, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5743)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    30. 3.2002 19:45:22
    Source
    Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.2, S.198-219
  8. MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications (2004) 0.02 
    0.017166464 = product of:
  0.10299878 = sum of:
    0.10299878 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10299878 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1
  9. Postlkethwaite, B.: LITA MARC Holdings Interest Group, American Library Association Conference, new Orleans, June 1993 (1994) 0.02 
    0.016293414 = product of:
  0.097760476 = sum of:
    0.097760476 = weight(_text_:relationship in 859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.097760476 = score(doc=859,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.42645246 = fieldWeight in 859, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=859)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Discusses standards related to the USMARC holdings format. Considers issues of concern surrounding the following standards: Z39.71, the proposed standard for holdings statements for bibliographic items; Z39.50, the standard for intersystem search and retrieval; and X12, the national standard for the transmission of business data. Aslo discusses the relationship between EDI and the USMARC holdings format. Work is currently in progress to update the holdings format
  10. Parent, I.: IFLA study on functional requirements for bibliographic records : an Anglo-American perspective (1995) 0.02 
    0.016293414 = product of:
  0.097760476 = sum of:
    0.097760476 = weight(_text_:relationship in 3080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.097760476 = score(doc=3080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.42645246 = fieldWeight in 3080, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3080)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Presents a view on the work of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records Study Group on behalf of the Anglo-American cataloguing tradition. The study is examining the fundamental aspects of record design using the entity-attribute-relationship model to link data elements to the function that a user can perform while accessing a bibliographic record. The data and functions are being linked by UNIMARC fields
  11. Block, B.; Hengel, C.; Heuvelmann, R.; Katz, C.; Rusch, B.; Schmidgall, K.; Sigrist, B.: Maschinelles Austauschformat für Bibliotheken und die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records : Oder: Wieviel FRBR verträgt MAB? (2005) 0.02 
    0.016249795 = product of:
  0.09749877 = sum of:
    0.09749877 = weight(_text_:datenmodell in 467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09749877 = score(doc=467,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3738479 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.26079795 = fieldWeight in 467, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=467)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Eine konsequente Umsetzung des FRBR-Modells - schreibt OCLC - würde die größte Veränderung in der Katalogisierung seit hundert Jahren bedeuten. Doch gibt es auch andere Stimmen. So hieß es am Rande eines FRBRWorkshops, der 2004 in Der Deutschen Bibliothek stattfand: Das Verhältnis zwischen den FRBR und der Katalogisierungspraxis sei vergleichbar mit der Beziehung zwischen Fußballkommentatoren und der Fußballmannschaft. Die einen theoretisierten nach Spielende das, was die anderen soeben getan hätten. Was hat es mit den Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records nun tatsächlich auf sich? Haben vielleicht beide Stimmen Recht? In welcher Beziehung steht das MAB-Format zu dem vorliegenden Modell? Wie lassen sich die Entitäten mit ihren jeweiligen Attributen in MAB abbilden? Bietet MAB die strukturellen Voraussetzungen, um FRBR-Anwendungen zu unterstützen? Das sind die Fragen, die den MAB-Ausschuss, der seit Beginn diesen Jahres als Expertengruppe Datenformate auftritt, beschäftigten und auf die im Folgenden erste Antworten versucht werden. Die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, kurz FRBR, sind eine Empfehlung der International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) von 1998 zur Neustrukturierung von Bibliothekskatalogen. Dabei sind die FRBR ausgelegt als ein logisches Denkmodell für bibliographische Beschreibungen. Es handelt sich ausdrücklich nicht um ein umsetzungsreifes Datenmodell oder gar ein praktisches Regelwerk. Das Modell bleibt auf einer abstrakten Ebene. Beschrieben werden abstrakte Entitäten mit ihren Eigenschaften und Beziehungen zueinander.
  12. MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications (2004) 0.02 
    0.0150206555 = product of:
  0.09012393 = sum of:
    0.09012393 = weight(_text_:22 in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09012393 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7196, 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=7196)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1
  13. Geißelmann, F.: Arbeitsergebnisse der Arbeitsgruppe Codes (2000) 0.02 
    0.0150206555 = product of:
  0.09012393 = sum of:
    0.09012393 = weight(_text_:22 in 4973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09012393 = score(doc=4973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4973, 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=4973)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    26. 8.2000 19:22:35
  14. Weber, R.: "Functional requirements for bibliographic records" und Regelwerksentwicklung (2001) 0.02 
    0.0150206555 = product of:
  0.09012393 = sum of:
    0.09012393 = weight(_text_:22 in 6838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09012393 = score(doc=6838,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 13(2001) H.3, S.20-22
  15. MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications part 2 (2004) 0.02 
    0.0150206555 = product of:
  0.09012393 = sum of:
    0.09012393 = weight(_text_:22 in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09012393 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2841, 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=2841)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2
  16. Frias, J.A.: ¬La estructura conceptual del registro bibliografico : una revision (1996) 0.01 
    0.014256737 = product of:
  0.08554042 = sum of:
    0.08554042 = weight(_text_:relationship in 4618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08554042 = score(doc=4618,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.3731459 = fieldWeight in 4618, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4618)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    It is assumed that the conceptual structure of bibliographic records is based on the knowledge of user needs. In applying the entity-relationship model to the library catalogue the authority file and bibliographic records can be viewed as attributes, and the links between records and elements as relationships. Outlines the bibliographic relationships of the UNIMARC format, the analysis of hierarchical relationships carried out by Goosens and Mazur-Rzesos, and the typology of bibliographic documents established by McCallum. Presents 7 types of relationships developed by Tillet and gives results of an empirical study carried out to establish the extent and features of bibliographic relationships in the computerized catalogue of the Library of Congress
  17. McCallum, S.H.: MARCXML sampler (2005) 0.01 
    0.014256737 = product of:
  0.08554042 = sum of:
    0.08554042 = weight(_text_:relationship in 4361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08554042 = score(doc=4361,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.3731459 = fieldWeight in 4361, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4361)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    At the IFLA conference in Glasgow, three years ago, the Information Technology Section organized a workshop on metadata. At that workshop MARCXML was presented, along with plans and expectations for its use. This paper is an update to that report. It reviews the development of an XML schema for MARC 21 and the MARCXML tool kit of transformations. The close relationship of MARCXML to the recent ISO standards work associated with MARC in XML is described. Sketches of interesting applications follow with uses that range from MARCXML as a switching format to a maintenance tool to a record communication format for new XML-based protocols.
  18. Byrne, D.J.: MARC manual : understanding and using MARC records (1998) 0.01 
    0.012874847 = product of:
  0.07724908 = sum of:
    0.07724908 = weight(_text_:22 in 6077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07724908 = score(doc=6077,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6077, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6077)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    2. 8.2001 16:22:33
  19. Giordano, R.: ¬The documentation of electronic texts : using Text Encoding Initiative headers: an introduction (1994) 0.01 
    0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=866,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 866, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=866)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Presents a general introduction to the form and functions of the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) headers and explains their relationship to the MARC record. The TEI header's main strength is that it documents electronic texts in a standard exchange format that should be understandable to both librarian cataloguers and text encoders outside of librarianship. TEI gives encoders the ability to document the the electronic text itself, its source, its encoding principles, and revisions, as well as non bibliographic characteristics of the text that can support both scholarly analysis and retrieval. Its bibliographic descriptions can be loaded into standard remote bibliographic databases, which should make electronic texts as easy to find for researchers as texts in other media. Presents a brief overview of the TEI header, the file description and ways in which the TEI headers have counterparts in MARC, the Encoding Description, the Profile Description, the Revision Description, the size and complexity of the TEI header, and the use of the TEI header to support document retrieval and analysis, with notes on some of the prospects and problems
  20. Cataloging and classification standards and rules (1996) 0.01 
    0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 51
  • d 14
  • sp 2
  • pl 1
  • More… Less…

Types

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

Themes