Search (84 results, page 1 of 5)

0.030610349 = product of:
  0.061220698 = sum of:
    0.036657106 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036657106 = score(doc=2861,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
    0.02456359 = product of:
      0.04912718 = sum of:
        0.04912718 = weight(_text_:22 in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04912718 = score(doc=2861,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2861, 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=2861)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Paper presented at a symposium on 'Implementing the Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT): Controlled Vocabulary in the Extended MARC format', held at the 1989 Annual Conference of the Art Libraries Society of North America. Describes how changes are effected in MARC and the role of the various groups in the library community that are involved in the implementing these changes. Discusses the expansion of the formats to accomodate cataloguing and retrieval for visual materials. Expanded capabilities for coding visual materials offer greater opportunity for user access.

Date

4.12.1995 22:40:20

0.018328553 = product of:
  0.07331421 = sum of:
    0.07331421 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07331421 = score(doc=4421,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 4421, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4421)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.013746415 = product of:
  0.05498566 = sum of:
    0.05498566 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05498566 = score(doc=3008,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 3008, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3008)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.013026812 = product of:
  0.05210725 = sum of:
    0.05210725 = product of:
      0.1042145 = sum of:
        0.1042145 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1042145 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

30. 3.2002 19:45:22

Source

Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.2, S.198-219

0.012281795 = product of:
  0.04912718 = sum of:
    0.04912718 = product of:
      0.09825436 = sum of:
        0.09825436 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09825436 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

0.011455346 = product of:
  0.045821384 = sum of:
    0.045821384 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045821384 = score(doc=3033,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 3033, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3033)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.011455346 = product of:
  0.045821384 = sum of:
    0.045821384 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045821384 = score(doc=4578,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 4578, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4578)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.011455346 = product of:
  0.045821384 = sum of:
    0.045821384 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045821384 = score(doc=4439,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 4439, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4439)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.011340214 = product of:
  0.045360856 = sum of:
    0.045360856 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045360856 = score(doc=5565,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 5565, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5565)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Surveys how the USMARC integrated bibliographic format (UBIF) could be mapped onto an hypermedia document USMARC format (HDUF) to meet the requirements of a hypermedia document control/retrieval/delivery (HDRD) system for the Internet. Explores the characteristics of such a system using an example of the WWW's directory and searching engine Yahoo!. Discusses additional standard specifications for the UBIF's structure, content designation, and data content to map this format into the HDUF that can serve as a proxy for the Net HDRD system

0.011340214 = product of:
  0.045360856 = sum of:
    0.045360856 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045360856 = score(doc=7679,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 7679, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7679)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses the issues involved in the development of data formats for computerized information retrieval systems. Integrated databases capable of holding both bibliographic and factual information, in a single database structure, are more convenient for searching and retrieval by end users. Several bibliographic formats have been developed and are used for these bibliographic control puposes. Reviews features of 6 major bibliographic formats: USMARC, UKMARC, UNIMARC, CCF, MIBIS and ABNCD are reviewed. Only 2 formats: CCF and ABNCD are capable of holding both bibliographic and factual information and supporting the design of integrated databases. The comparison suggests that, while CCF makes more detailed provision for bibliographic information, ABNCD makes better provision for factual information such as profiles of institutions, information systems, projects and human experts

0.01074657 = product of:
  0.04298628 = sum of:
    0.04298628 = product of:
      0.08597256 = sum of:
        0.08597256 = weight(_text_:22 in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08597256 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

0.01074657 = product of:
  0.04298628 = sum of:
    0.04298628 = product of:
      0.08597256 = sum of:
        0.08597256 = weight(_text_:22 in 4973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08597256 = score(doc=4973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

26. 8.2000 19:22:35

0.01074657 = product of:
  0.04298628 = sum of:
    0.04298628 = product of:
      0.08597256 = sum of:
        0.08597256 = weight(_text_:22 in 6838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08597256 = score(doc=6838,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 13(2001) H.3, S.20-22

0.01074657 = product of:
  0.04298628 = sum of:
    0.04298628 = product of:
      0.08597256 = sum of:
        0.08597256 = weight(_text_:22 in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08597256 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2

0.009720184 = product of:
  0.038880736 = sum of:
    0.038880736 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038880736 = score(doc=866,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 866, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=866)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.009720184 = product of:
  0.038880736 = sum of:
    0.038880736 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038880736 = score(doc=5403,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 5403, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5403)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0092113465 = product of:
  0.036845386 = sum of:
    0.036845386 = product of:
      0.07369077 = sum of:
        0.07369077 = weight(_text_:22 in 6077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07369077 = score(doc=6077,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

2. 8.2001 16:22:33

0.0091642765 = product of:
  0.036657106 = sum of:
    0.036657106 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036657106 = score(doc=2996,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 2996, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2996)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.0091642765 = product of:
  0.036657106 = sum of:
    0.036657106 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036657106 = score(doc=8865,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 8865, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8865)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.0091642765 = product of:
  0.036657106 = sum of:
    0.036657106 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036657106 = score(doc=859,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 859, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=859)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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