Search (75 results, page 1 of 4)

0.054307286 = product of:
  0.09051214 = sum of:
    0.014111101 = product of:
      0.0705555 = sum of:
        0.0705555 = weight(_text_:problem in 5437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0705555 = score(doc=5437,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.39792046 = fieldWeight in 5437, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5437)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.022459546 = weight(_text_:of in 5437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022459546 = score(doc=5437,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 5437, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5437)
    0.053941496 = product of:
      0.10788299 = sum of:
        0.10788299 = weight(_text_:mind in 5437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10788299 = score(doc=5437,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2607373 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.41376126 = fieldWeight in 5437, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5437)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to raise and address a number of issues pertaining to the conversion of Common Communication Format (CCF) into MARC21. In this era of global resource sharing, exchange of bibliographic records from one system to another is imperative in today's library communities. Instead of using a single standard to create machine-readable catalogue records, more than 20 standards have emerged and are being used by different institutions. Because of these variations in standards, sharing of resources and transfer of data from one system to another among the institutions locally and globally has become a significant problem. Addressing this problem requires keeping in mind that countries such as India and others in southeast Asia are using the CCF as a standard for creating bibliographic cataloguing records. This paper describes a way to map the bibliographic catalogue records from CCF to MARC21, although 100% mapping is not possible. In addition, the paper describes an experimental approach that enumerates problems that may occur during the mapping of records/exchanging of records and how these problems can be overcome.

0.047103487 = product of:
  0.11775871 = sum of:
    0.098406665 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 3339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.098406665 = score(doc=3339,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.426834 = fieldWeight in 3339, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3339)
    0.01935205 = weight(_text_:of in 3339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01935205 = score(doc=3339,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 3339, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3339)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Catalogues have evolved from lists of physical items present in particular libraries into computerized access and retrieval tools for works dispersed across local and national boundaries. Works themselves are no longer constrained by physical form yet cataloguing rules have not evolved in parallel with these developments. Reanalyzes the nature of works and their publication in an approach based on object oriented modelling and demonstrates the advantages to be gained thereby. Suggests a strategic plan to enable an organic transformation to be made from current MARC based cataloguing to object oriented cataloguing. Proposes major revisions of MARC in order to allow records to maximize the benefits of both computerized databases and high speed data networks. This will involve a fundamental shift away from the AACR philosophy of description of, plus access to, physical items

0.028350845 = product of:
  0.047251407 = sum of:
    0.011641062 = product of:
      0.05820531 = sum of:
        0.05820531 = weight(_text_:problem in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05820531 = score(doc=2425,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.3282676 = fieldWeight in 2425, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2425)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.015800884 = weight(_text_:of in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015800884 = score(doc=2425,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 2425, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2425)
    0.019809462 = product of:
      0.039618924 = sum of:
        0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039618924 = score(doc=2425,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2425, 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=2425)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The FRBR model is by many considered to be an important contribution to the next generation of bibliographic catalogues, but a major challenge for the library community is how to use this model on already existing MARC-based bibliographic catalogues. This problem requires a solution for the interpretation and conversion of MARC records, and a tool for this kind of conversion is developed as a part of the Norwegian BIBSYS FRBR project. The tool is based on a systematic approach to the interpretation and conversion process and is designed to be adaptable to the rules applied in different catalogues.

Source

Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006

0.021653423 = product of:
  0.054133557 = sum of:
    0.02211663 = weight(_text_:of in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02211663 = score(doc=2845,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 2845, 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=2845)
    0.032016926 = product of:
      0.06403385 = sum of:
        0.06403385 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06403385 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The current library bibliographic infrastructure was constructed in the early days of computers - before the Web, XML, and a variety of other technological advances that now offer new opportunities. General requirements of a modern metadata infrastructure for libraries are identified, including such qualities as versatility, extensibility, granularity, and openness. A new kind of metadata infrastructure is then proposed that exhibits at least some of those qualities. Some key challenges that must be overcome to implement a change of this magnitude are identified.

Date

9.12.2005 19:22:38

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.175-181

0.016279016 = product of:
  0.040697537 = sum of:
    0.018058153 = weight(_text_:of in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018058153 = score(doc=562,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
    0.022639386 = product of:
      0.045278773 = sum of:
        0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045278773 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The paper performs a thought experiment on the concept of a record based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records and library system functions, and concludes that if we want to develop a functional bibliographic record we need to do it within the context of a flexible, functional library systems record structure. The article suggests a new way to look at the library systems record that would allow libraries to move forward in terms of technology but also in terms of serving library users.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.166-174

0.014990156 = product of:
  0.03747539 = sum of:
    0.017665926 = weight(_text_:of in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017665926 = score(doc=7683,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 7683, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7683)
    0.019809462 = product of:
      0.039618924 = sum of:
        0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039618924 = score(doc=7683,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

Footnote

Presentation given as part of the OCLC Office of Research Distinguished Seminar Series Jan 1997

Source

OCLC newsletter. 1996, no.220, S.20-22

0.014163372 = product of:
  0.03540843 = sum of:
    0.0127690425 = weight(_text_:of in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0127690425 = score(doc=132,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 132, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=132)
    0.022639386 = product of:
      0.045278773 = sum of:
        0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045278773 = score(doc=132,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 132, 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=132)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper surveys the cataloging literature to collect problems that have been identified with the MARC 21 format. The problems are sorted into (1) problems that are not the fault of MARC 21; (2) problems that perhaps are not problems at all; (3) problems that are connected with the current shared cataloging environment; and 4) other problems with MARC 21 and vendor implementation of it. The author makes recommendations to deal with the true MARC 21 problems that remain after this analysis.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.013958423 = product of:
  0.034896057 = sum of:
    0.01791652 = weight(_text_:of in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01791652 = score(doc=136,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
    0.016979538 = product of:
      0.033959076 = sum of:
        0.033959076 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033959076 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Bibliographic relationships have taken on even greater importance in the context of ongoing efforts to integrate concepts from the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) into cataloging codes and database structures. In MARC 21, the linking entry fields are a major mechanism for expressing relationships between bibliographic records. Taxonomies of bibliographic relationships have been proposed by Tillett, with an extension by Smiraglia, and in FRBR itself. The present exercise is to provide a detailed bidirectional mapping of the MARC 21 linking fields to these two schemes. The correspondence of the Tillett taxonomic divisions to the MARC categorization of the linking fields as chronological, horizontal, or vertical is examined as well. Application of the findings to MARC format development and system functionality is discussed.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.013958423 = product of:
  0.034896057 = sum of:
    0.01791652 = weight(_text_:of in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01791652 = score(doc=302,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 302, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=302)
    0.016979538 = product of:
      0.033959076 = sum of:
        0.033959076 = weight(_text_:22 in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033959076 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 302, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=302)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC) is currently the most broadly used bibliographic standard for encoding and exchanging bibliographic data. However, MARC may not fully support representation of the dynamic nature and semantics of digital resources because of its rigid and single-layered linear structure. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model, which is designed to overcome the problems of MARC, does not provide sufficient data elements and adopts a predetermined hierarchy. A flexible structure for bibliographic data with detailed data elements is needed. Integrating MARC format with the hierarchical structure of FRBR is one approach to meet this need. The purpose of this research is to propose an approach that can facilitate interoperability between MARC and FRBR by providing a conceptual structure that can function as a mediator between MARC data elements and FRBR attributes.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.012797958 = product of:
  0.031994894 = sum of:
    0.017845279 = weight(_text_:of in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017845279 = score(doc=154,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
    0.0141496165 = product of:
      0.028299233 = sum of:
        0.028299233 = weight(_text_:22 in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028299233 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Encoded Archival Description (EAD) has provided a new way to approach manuscript and archival collection representation. A review of previous representational practices and problems highlights the benefits of using EAD. This new approach should be considered a partner rather than an adversary in the access providing process. Technological capabilities now allow for multiple metadata schemas to be employed in the creation of the finding aid. Crosswalks allow for MARC records to be generated from the detailed encoding of an EAD finding aid. In the process of creating these crosswalks and detailed encoding, EAD has generated more changes in traditional processes and procedures than originally imagined. The North Carolina State University (NCSU) Libraries sought to test the process of crosswalking EAD to MARC, investigating how this process used technology as well as changed physical procedures. By creating a complex and indepth EAD template for finding aids, with accompanying related encoding analogs embedded within the element structure, MARC records were generated that required minor editing and revision for inclusion in the NCSU Libraries OPAC. The creation of this bridge between EAD and MARC has stimulated theoretical discussions about the role of collaboration, technology, and expertise in the ongoing struggle to maximize access to our collections. While this study is a only a first attempt at harnessing this potential, a presentation of the tensions, struggles, and successes provides illumination to some of the larger issues facing special collections today.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.01239295 = product of:
  0.030982375 = sum of:
    0.011172912 = weight(_text_:of in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011172912 = score(doc=6523,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 6523, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6523)
    0.019809462 = product of:
      0.039618924 = sum of:
        0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039618924 = score(doc=6523,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6523, 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=6523)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Currently, few resources exist to guide libraries in the cataloguing of community information using the new USMARC Format for Cammunity Information (1993). In developing a community information database, Queens Borough Public Library, New York City, formulated their own cataloguing procedures for applying AACR2, LoC File Interpretations, and USMARC Format for Community Information to community information. Their practices include entering corporate names directly whenever possible and assigning LC subject headings for classes of persons and topics, adding neighbourhood level geographic subdivisions. The guidelines were specially designed to aid non cataloguers in cataloguing community information and have enabled library to maintain consistency in handling corporate names and in assigning subject headings, while creating database that is highly accessible to library staff and users

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.51-69

0.011189005 = product of:
  0.027972512 = sum of:
    0.013822895 = weight(_text_:of in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013822895 = score(doc=2422,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.21160212 = fieldWeight in 2422, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2422)
    0.0141496165 = product of:
      0.028299233 = sum of:
        0.028299233 = weight(_text_:22 in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028299233 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.007923785 = product of:
  0.039618924 = sum of:
    0.039618924 = product of:
      0.07923785 = sum of:
        0.07923785 = weight(_text_:22 in 6838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07923785 = score(doc=6838,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

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

0.0056598466 = product of:
  0.028299233 = sum of:
    0.028299233 = product of:
      0.056598466 = sum of:
        0.056598466 = weight(_text_:22 in 1544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056598466 = score(doc=1544,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1544, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1544)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2016 12:15:46

0.005473587 = product of:
  0.027367935 = sum of:
    0.027367935 = weight(_text_:of in 4079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027367935 = score(doc=4079,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.41895083 = fieldWeight in 4079, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4079)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The Bayerische Staatsbibliothek acting on behalf of the Consortium of European Research Libraries (CERL) was responsible for the preparation of this report under a contract agreed with the Commission of the European Communities Directorate General XIII as part of their Libraries Programme. The report considers the feasibility of the application of UNIMARC to multinational databases, and was based on a comparison of machine-readable bibliographic records in the UNIMARC format from 6 different national sources. Some are conversions from other formats, while others are 'native' UNIMARC records. The records are of books of the hand press period, that is, from the time of Gutenberg to about 1830

0.005293766 = product of:
  0.02646883 = sum of:
    0.02646883 = weight(_text_:of in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02646883 = score(doc=3033,freq=44.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.40518725 = fieldWeight in 3033, product of:
          6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
            44.0 = termFreq=44.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3033)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

Source

Navigating the networks: Proceedings of the 1994 Mid-year Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Portland, Oregon, May 21-25, 1994. Ed.: D.L. Andersen et al

0.0052405605 = product of:
  0.026202802 = sum of:
    0.026202802 = weight(_text_:of in 4618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026202802 = score(doc=4618,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 4618, 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=4618)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

Footnote

Übers. des Titels: The conceptual structure of the bibliographic record

0.0047777384 = product of:
  0.023888692 = sum of:
    0.023888692 = weight(_text_:of in 5754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023888692 = score(doc=5754,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 5754, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5754)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Offers the conceptual modelling technique as a means of analysing the future of library cataloguing with regard to cataloguing rules and MARC formats. Discusses the evolution of publishing technology and introduces the conceptual model that the IFLA is preparing in its study of the functional requirements of bibliographic records. Considers the purpose of cataloguing rules and how they have evolved in response to changes in technologies. Examines the future of cataloguing with future rules and alternative communication formats

0.004691646 = product of:
  0.02345823 = sum of:
    0.02345823 = weight(_text_:of in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02345823 = score(doc=131,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Argues that in library cataloguing and for optional functionality of bibliographic records the indexing of fields and subfields should follow a uniform approach. This would maintain effectiveness in searching, retrieval and display of bibliographic information both within systems and between systems. However, a review of different postings to the AUTOCAT and USMARC discussion lists indicates that the indexing and tagging of cataloguing data do not, at present, follow a consistent approach in online library systems. If the rationale of cataloguing principles is to bring uniformity in bibliographic description and effectiveness in access, they should also address the question of uniform approaches to the indexing of cataloguing data. In this context and in terms of the identification and handling of data elements, cataloguing standards (codes, MARC formats and the Z39.50 standard) should be brought closer, in that they should provide guidelines for the designation of data elements for machine readable records

0.004691646 = product of:
  0.02345823 = sum of:
    0.02345823 = weight(_text_:of in 3750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02345823 = score(doc=3750,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 3750, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3750)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Bibliographic control is the process of creation, exchange, preservation, and use of data about information resources. Formal bibliographic control has been practiced for millennia, but modern techniques began to be developed and implemented in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. A series of cataloging codes characterized this period. These codes governed the creation of library catalogs, first in book form, then on cards, and finally in electronic formats, including MAchine-Readable Cataloging (MARC). The period was also characterized by the rise of shared cataloging programs, allowing the development of resource-saving copy cataloging procedures. Such programs were assisted by the development of cataloging networks such as OCLC and RLG. The twentieth century saw progress in the theory of bibliographic control, including the 1961 Paris Principles, culminating with the early twenty-first century Statement of International Cataloguing Principles and IFLA's Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). Toward the end of the period bibliographic control began to be applied to newly invented electronic media, as "metadata." Trends point toward continued development of collaborative and international approaches to bibliographic control.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates