Search (87 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  1. Chandrakar, R.: Mapping CCF to MARC21 : an experimental approach (2001) 0.05 
    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.
  2. Aalberg, T.; Haugen, F.B.; Husby, O.: ¬A Tool for Converting from MARC to FRBR (2006) 0.03 
    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
  3. Tennant, R.: ¬A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty-first century (2004) 0.02 
    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
  4. Cundiff, M.V.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) (2004) 0.02 
    0.018611232 = product of:
  0.04652808 = sum of:
    0.023888692 = weight(_text_:of in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023888692 = score(doc=2834,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 2834, 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=2834)
    0.022639386 = product of:
      0.045278773 = sum of:
        0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045278773 = score(doc=2834,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2834, 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=2834)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article provides an introductory overview of the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard, better known as METS. It will be of most use to librarians and technical staff who are encountering METS for the first time. The article contains a brief history of the development of METS, a primer covering the basic structure and content of METS documents, and a discussion of several issues relevant to the implementation and continuing development of METS including object models, extension schemata, and application profiles.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.52-64
  5. El-Sherbini, M.: Metadata and the future of cataloging (2001) 0.02 
    0.017131606 = product of:
  0.042829014 = sum of:
    0.02018963 = weight(_text_:of in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018963 = score(doc=751,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
    0.022639386 = product of:
      0.045278773 = sum of:
        0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045278773 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 751, 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=751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article is a survey of representative metadata efforts comparing them to MARC 21 metadata in order to determine if new electronic formats require the development of a new set of standards. This study surveys the ongoing metadata projects in order to identify what types of metadata exist and how they are used and also compares and analyzes selected metadata elements in an attempt to illustrate how they are related to MARC 21 metadata format elements.
    Date
    23. 1.2007 11:22:30
  6. Avram, H.D.: Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC): 1961-1974 (2009) 0.02 
    0.016284827 = product of:
  0.040712066 = sum of:
    0.020902606 = weight(_text_:of in 3844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020902606 = score(doc=3844,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 3844, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3844)
    0.019809462 = product of:
      0.039618924 = sum of:
        0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 3844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039618924 = score(doc=3844,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3844, 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=3844)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The MARC Program of the Library of Congress, led during its formative years by the author of this entry, was a landmark in the history of automation. Technical procedures, standards, and formatting for the catalog record were experimented with and developed in modern form in this project. The project began when computers were mainframe, slow, and limited in storage. So little was known then about many aspects of automation of library information resources that the MARC project can be seen as a pioneering effort with immeasurable impact.
    Date
    27. 8.2011 14:22:53
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  7. Jacobs, J.W.; Summers, E.; Ankersen, E.: Cyril: expanding the horizons of MARC21 (2004) 0.02 
    0.016279016 = product of:
  0.040697537 = sum of:
    0.018058153 = weight(_text_:of in 4749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018058153 = score(doc=4749,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 4749, 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=4749)
    0.022639386 = product of:
      0.045278773 = sum of:
        0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 4749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045278773 = score(doc=4749,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4749, 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=4749)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Describes the construction of the author's Perl program, Cyril, to add vernacular Russian (Cyrillic) characters to existing MARC records. The program takes advantage of the ALA-LC standards for Romanization to create character mappings that "de-transliterate" specified MARC fields. The creation of Cyril raises both linguistic and technical issues, which are thoroughly examined. Concludes by considering the implications for cataloging and authority control standards, as we move to a multilingual, multi-script bibliographic environment.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.8-17
  8. Coyle, K.: Future considerations : the functional library systems record (2004) 0.02 
    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
  9. Guenther, R.S.: Using the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) for resource description : guidelines and applications (2004) 0.02 
    0.015664605 = product of:
  0.03916151 = sum of:
    0.01935205 = weight(_text_:of in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01935205 = score(doc=2837,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 2837, 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=2837)
    0.019809462 = product of:
      0.039618924 = sum of:
        0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039618924 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2837, 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=2837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This paper describes the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS), its accompanying documentation and some of its applications. It reviews the MODS user guidelines provided by the Library of Congress and how they enable a user of the schema to consistently apply MODS as a metadata scheme. Because the schema itself could not fully document appropriate usage, the guidelines provide element definitions, history, relationships with other elements, usage conventions, and examples. Short descriptions of some MODS applications are given and a more detailed discussion of its use in the Library of Congress's Minerva project for Web archiving is given.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.89-98
  10. Eden, B.L.: Metadata and librarianship : will MARC survive? (2004) 0.02 
    0.015664605 = product of:
  0.03916151 = sum of:
    0.01935205 = weight(_text_:of in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01935205 = score(doc=4750,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 4750, 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=4750)
    0.019809462 = product of:
      0.039618924 = sum of:
        0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039618924 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4750, 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=4750)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Metadata schema and standards are now a part of the information landscape. Librarianship has slowly realized that MARC is only one of a proliferation of metadata standards, and that MARC has many pros and cons related to its age, original conception, and biases. Should librarianship continue to promote the MARC standard? Are there better metadata standards out there that are more robust, user-friendly, and dynamic in the organization and presentation of information? This special issue examines current initiatives that are actively incorporating MARC standards and concepts into new metadata schemata, while also predicting a future where MARC may not be the metadata schema of choice for the organization and description of information.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.6-7
  11. Carini, P.; Shepherd, K.: ¬The MARC standard and encoded archival description (2004) 0.02 
    0.015311283 = product of:
  0.038278207 = sum of:
    0.01563882 = weight(_text_:of in 2830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01563882 = score(doc=2830,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 2830, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2830)
    0.022639386 = product of:
      0.045278773 = sum of:
        0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 2830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045278773 = score(doc=2830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
  12. El-Sherbini, M.A.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2005-06 (2008) 0.02 
    0.015311283 = product of:
  0.038278207 = sum of:
    0.01563882 = weight(_text_:of in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01563882 = score(doc=249,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
    0.022639386 = product of:
      0.045278773 = sum of:
        0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045278773 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, 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=249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This paper reviews library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2005-06. It covers pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of cataloging; Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (FRBR); metadata and its applications and relation to Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC); cataloging tools and standards; authority control; and recruitment, training, and the changing role of catalogers.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  13. Carvalho, J.R. de; Cordeiro, M.I.; Lopes, A.; Vieira, M.: Meta-information about MARC : an XML framework for validation, explanation and help systems (2004) 0.01 
    0.014990156 = product of:
  0.03747539 = sum of:
    0.017665926 = weight(_text_:of in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017665926 = score(doc=2848,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 2848, 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=2848)
    0.019809462 = product of:
      0.039618924 = sum of:
        0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039618924 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2848, 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=2848)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article proposes a schema for meta-information about MARC that can express at a fairly comprehensive level the syntactic and semantic aspects of MARC formats in XML, including not only rules but also all texts and examples that are conveyed by MARC documentation. It can be thought of as an XML version of the MARC or UNIMARC manuals, for both machine and human usage. The article explains how such a schema can be the central piece of a more complete framework, to be used in conjunction with "slim" record formats, providing a rich environment for the automated processing of bibliographic data.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.131-137
  14. Keith, C.: Using XSLT to manipulate MARC metadata (2004) 0.01 
    0.014917984 = product of:
  0.037294958 = sum of:
    0.02031542 = weight(_text_:of in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02031542 = score(doc=4747,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 4747, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4747)
    0.016979538 = product of:
      0.033959076 = sum of:
        0.033959076 = weight(_text_:22 in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033959076 = score(doc=4747,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4747, 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=4747)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This paper describes the MARCXML architecture implemented at the Library of Congress. It gives an overview of the component pieces of the architecture, including the MARCXML schema and the MARCXML toolkit, while giving a brief tutorial on their use. Several different applications of the architecture and tools are discussed to illustrate the features of the toolkit being developed thus far. Nearly any metadata format can take advantage of the features of the toolkit, and the process of the toolkit enabling a new format is discussed. Finally, this paper intends to foster new ideas with regards to the transformation of descriptive metadata, especially using XML tools. In this paper the following conventions will be used: MARC21 will refer to MARC 21 records in the ISO 2709 record structure used today; MARCXML will refer to MARC 21 records in an XML structure.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.122-130
  15. McCallum, S.H.: Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC): 1975-2007 (2009) 0.01 
    0.014917984 = product of:
  0.037294958 = sum of:
    0.02031542 = weight(_text_:of in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02031542 = score(doc=3841,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 3841, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3841)
    0.016979538 = product of:
      0.033959076 = sum of:
        0.033959076 = weight(_text_:22 in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033959076 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3841, 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=3841)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This entry describes the development of the MARC Communications format. After a brief overview of the initial 10 years it describes the succeeding phases of development up to the present. This takes the reader through the expansion of the format for all types of bibliographic data and for a multiple character scripts. At the same time a large business community was developing that offered products based on the format to the library community. The introduction of the Internet in the 1990s and the Web technology brought new opportunities and challenges and the format was adapted to this new environment. There has been a great deal of international adoption of the format that has continued into the 2000s. More recently new syntaxes for MARC 21 and models are being explored.
    Date
    27. 8.2011 14:22:38
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  16. Proffitt, M.: Pulling it all together : use of METS in RLG cultural materials service (2004) 0.01 
    0.014163372 = product of:
  0.03540843 = sum of:
    0.0127690425 = weight(_text_:of in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0127690425 = score(doc=767,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 767, 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=767)
    0.022639386 = product of:
      0.045278773 = sum of:
        0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045278773 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 767, 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=767)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    RLG has used METS for a particular application, that is as a wrapper for structural metadata. When RLG cultural materials was launched, there was no single way to deal with "complex digital objects". METS provides a standard means of encoding metadata regarding the digital objects represented in RCM, and METS has now been fully integrated into the workflow for this service.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.65-68
  17. Yee, M.M.: New perspectives on the shared cataloging environment and a MARC 21 shopping list (2004) 0.01 
    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
  18. Riva, P.: Mapping MARC 21 linking entry fields to FRBR and Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (2004) 0.01 
    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
  19. Tell, B.: On MARC and natural text searching : a review of Pauline Cochrane's inspirational thinking grafted onto a Swedish spy on library matters (2000) 0.01 
    0.013426805 = product of:
  0.03356701 = sum of:
    0.016587472 = weight(_text_:of in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016587472 = score(doc=1183,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
    0.016979538 = product of:
      0.033959076 = sum of:
        0.033959076 = weight(_text_:22 in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033959076 = score(doc=1183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1183, 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=1183)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The following discussion is in appreciation of the invaluable inspirations Pauline Cochrane, by her acumen and perspicacity, has implanted into my thinking regarding various applications of library and information science, especially those involving machine-readable records and subject categorization. It is indeed an honor for me at my age to be offered to contribute to Pauline's Festschrift when instead I should be concerned about my forthcoming obituary. In the following, I must give some Background to what formed my thinking before my involvement in the field and thus before I encountered Pauline.
    Date
    22. 9.1997 19:16:05
    Imprint
    Urbana-Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science
    Source
    Saving the time of the library user through subject access innovation: Papers in honor of Pauline Atherton Cochrane. Ed.: W.J. Wheeler
  20. Andresen, L.: After MARC - what then? (2004) 0.01 
    0.013426805 = product of:
  0.03356701 = sum of:
    0.016587472 = weight(_text_:of in 4751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016587472 = score(doc=4751,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 4751, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4751)
    0.016979538 = product of:
      0.033959076 = sum of:
        0.033959076 = weight(_text_:22 in 4751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033959076 = score(doc=4751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4751, 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=4751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The article discusses the future of the MARC formats and outlines how future cataloguing practice and bibliographic records might look. Background and basic functionality of the MARC formats are outlined, and it is pointed out that MARC is manifest in several different formats. This is illustrated through a comparison between the MARC21 format and the Danish MARC format "danMARC2". It is argued that present cataloguing codes and MARC formats are based primarily on the Paris principles and that "functional requirements for bibliographic records" (FRBR) would serve as a more solid and user-oriented platform for future development of cataloguing codes and formats. Furthermore, it is argued that MARC is a library-specific format, which results in neither exchange with library external sectors nor inclusion of other texts being facilitated. XML could serve as the technical platform for a model for future registrations, consisting of some core data and different supplements of data necessary for different sectors and purposes.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.40-51

Authors

Languages

  • e 58
  • d 22
  • f 2
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 73
  • s 8
  • el 6
  • m 6
  • n 2
  • b 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications