Search (190 results, page 2 of 10)

  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  1. Ranta, J.A.: Queens Borough Public Library's Guidelines for cataloging community information (1996) 0.00 
    0.0038721424 = product of:
  0.027104996 = sum of:
    0.01547085 = weight(_text_:information in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01547085 = score(doc=6523,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.3592092 = fieldWeight in 6523, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6523)
    0.011634145 = product of:
      0.02326829 = sum of:
        0.02326829 = weight(_text_:22 in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02326829 = score(doc=6523,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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
  2. Brownrigg, E.; Butler, B.: ¬An electronic library communications format : a definition and development proposal for MARC III (1990) 0.00 
    0.0038702567 = product of:
  0.027091796 = sum of:
    0.018822279 = weight(_text_:system in 2326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018822279 = score(doc=2326,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 2326, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2326)
    0.008269517 = weight(_text_:information in 2326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008269517 = score(doc=2326,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 2326, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2326)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    The Memex Research Institute has proposed a research project to describe in machine-readable form all the information needed to create electronic "books" in a standard communications format. Two kinds of extended computer file formats employing the MARC structure will be defined: Access Formats that take into consideration the many existing index and abstract system formats and their associated databases; and Document Formats that provide for storage, representation, transmission, and display of machine-readabie works in text or image form. The formats that emerge can be employed by libraries, publishers, information utilities, and computer users worldwide to convert printed works to electronic forms or to create original works in electric format, and thus foment the creation of networked electronic library collections.
  3. Riva, P.: Mapping MARC 21 linking entry fields to FRBR and Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (2004) 0.00 
    0.0037293585 = product of:
  0.026105508 = sum of:
    0.016133383 = weight(_text_:system in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016133383 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
    0.009972124 = product of:
      0.019944249 = sum of:
        0.019944249 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019944249 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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
  4. Boruah, B.B.; Ravikumar, S.; Gayang, F.L.: Consistency, extent, and validation of the utilization of the MARC 21 bibliographic standard in the college libraries of Assam in India (2023) 0.00 
    0.0036616514 = product of:
  0.025631558 = sum of:
    0.008269517 = weight(_text_:information in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008269517 = score(doc=1183,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
    0.017362041 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017362041 = score(doc=1183,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    This paper brings light to the existing practice of cataloging in the college libraries of Assam in terms of utilizing the MARC 21 standard and its structure, i.e., the tags, subfield codes, and indicators. Catalog records from six college libraries are collected and a survey is conducted to understand the local users' information requirements for the catalog. Places, where libraries have scope to improve and which divisions of tags could be more helpful for them in information retrieval, are identified and suggested. This study fulfilled the need for local-level assessment of the catalogs.
  5. Kaiser, M.; Lieder, H.J.; Majcen, K.; Vallant, H.: New ways of sharing and using authority information : the LEAF project (2003) 0.00 
    0.003544314 = product of:
  0.016540132 = sum of:
    0.0067222426 = weight(_text_:system in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067222426 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.08699492 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.0036171607 = weight(_text_:information in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0036171607 = score(doc=1166,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.083984874 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.0062007294 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062007294 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.08355226 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    This article presents an overview of the LEAF project (Linking and Exploring Authority Files)1, which has set out to provide a framework for international, collaborative work in the sector of authority data with respect to authority control. Elaborating the virtues of authority control in today's Web environment is an almost futile exercise, since so much has been said and written about it in the last few years.2 The World Wide Web is generally understood to be poorly structured-both with regard to content and to locating required information. Highly structured databases might be viewed as small islands of precision within this chaotic environment. Though the Web in general or any particular structured database would greatly benefit from increased authority control, it should be noted that our following considerations only refer to authority control with regard to databases of "memory institutions" (i.e., libraries, archives, and museums). Moreover, when talking about authority records, we exclusively refer to personal name authority records that describe a specific person. Although different types of authority records could indeed be used in similar ways to the ones presented in this article, discussing those different types is outside the scope of both the LEAF project and this article. Personal name authority records-as are all other "authorities"-are maintained as separate records and linked to various kinds of descriptive records. Name authority records are usually either kept in independent databases or in separate tables in the database containing the descriptive records. This practice points at a crucial benefit: by linking any number of descriptive records to an authorized name record, the records related to this entity are collocated in the database. Variant forms of the authorized name are referenced in the authority records and thus ensure the consistency of the database while enabling search and retrieval operations that produce accurate results. On one hand, authority control may be viewed as a positive prerequisite of a consistent catalogue; on the other, the creation of new authority records is a very time consuming and expensive undertaking. As a consequence, various models of providing access to existing authority records have emerged: the Library of Congress and the French National Library (Bibliothèque nationale de France), for example, make their authority records available to all via a web-based search service.3 In Germany, the Personal Name Authority File (PND, Personennamendatei4) maintained by the German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek, Frankfurt/Main) offers a different approach to shared access: within a closed network, participating institutions have online access to their pooled data. The number of recent projects and initiatives that have addressed the issue of authority control in one way or another is considerable.5 Two important current initiatives should be mentioned here: The Name Authority Cooperative (NACO) and Virtual International Authority File (VIAF).
    NACO was established in 1976 and is hosted by the Library of Congress. At the beginning of 2003, nearly 400 institutions were involved in this undertaking, including 43 institutions from outside the United States.6 Despite the enormous success of NACO and the impressive annual growth of the initiative, there are requirements for participation that form an obstacle for many institutions: they have to follow the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) and employ the MARC217 data format. Participating institutions also have to belong to either OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) or RLG (Research Libraries Group) in order to be able to contribute records, and they have to provide a specified minimum number of authority records per year. A recent proof of concept project of the Library of Congress, OCLC and the German National Library-Virtual International Authority File (VIAF)8-will, in its first phase, test automatic linking of the records of the Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF) and the German Personal Name Authority File by using matching algorithms and software developed by OCLC. The results are expected to form the basis of a "Virtual International Authority File". The project will then test the maintenance of the virtual authority file by employing the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)9 to harvest the metadata for new, updated, and deleted records. When using the "Virtual International Authority File" a cataloguer will be able to check the system to see whether the authority record he wants to establish already exists. The final phase of the project will test possibilities for displaying records in the preferred language and script of the end user. Currently, there are still some clear limitations associated with the ways in which authority records are used by memory institutions. One of the main problems has to do with limited access: generally only large institutions or those that are part of a library network have unlimited online access to permanently updated authority records. Smaller institutions outside these networks usually have to fall back on less efficient ways of obtaining authority data, or have no access at all. Cross-domain sharing of authority data between libraries, archives, museums and other memory institutions simply does not happen at present. Public users are, by and large, not even aware that such things as name authority records exist and are excluded from access to these information resources.
  6. Passin-Aguirre, N.; Leresche, F.: ¬Le format INTERMARC integre : futur format de travail de la BNF (1997) 0.00 
    0.0035242445 = product of:
  0.02466971 = sum of:
    0.018822279 = weight(_text_:system in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018822279 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 915, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=915)
    0.0058474317 = weight(_text_:information in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058474317 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 915, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=915)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    The French National Library (NBF) has developed 2 new versions of INTERMARC, (A) and (B), to standardise cataloguing procedures and enrich bibliographic description and access. The bibliographic description format (B) accords with existing ISBD and can be used for all types of documents, allowing inclusion of specific characteristics and addition of new links. The format for editing records (A) eliminates redundancies and enriches links between fields. Both will be used as reference formats in the new Information System
  7. Heaney, M.: Object-oriented cataloging (1995) 0.00 
    0.0033156392 = product of:
  0.023209473 = sum of:
    0.0058474317 = weight(_text_:information in 3339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058474317 = score(doc=3339,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3339, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3339)
    0.017362041 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017362041 = score(doc=3339,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 3339, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3339)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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
    Source
    Information technology and libraries. 14(1995) no.3, S.135-153
  8. Murphy, C.: Curriculum-enhanced MARC (CEMARC) : a new cataloging format for school librarians (1995) 0.00 
    0.0031857998 = product of:
  0.022300597 = sum of:
    0.0058474317 = weight(_text_:information in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058474317 = score(doc=5100,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5100, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5100)
    0.016453166 = product of:
      0.03290633 = sum of:
        0.03290633 = weight(_text_:22 in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03290633 = score(doc=5100,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 5100, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Date
    11. 9.1996 19:22:20
    Source
    Literacy: traditional, cultural, technological. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the International Association of School Librarianship (selected papers), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh University, School of Library and Information Science, 17-22 Jul 94
  9. Crook, M.: Barbara Tillett discusses cataloging rules and conceptual models (1996) 0.00 
    0.003108885 = product of:
  0.021762194 = sum of:
    0.010128049 = weight(_text_:information in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010128049 = score(doc=7683,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 7683, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7683)
    0.011634145 = product of:
      0.02326829 = sum of:
        0.02326829 = weight(_text_:22 in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02326829 = score(doc=7683,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    The chief of cataloguing policy and support office at the LoC presents her views on the usefulness of conceptual modelling in determining future directions for cataloguing and the MARC format. After describing the evolution of bibliographic processes, suggests usign the entity-relationship conceptual model to step back from how we record information today and start thinking about what information really means and why we provide it. Argues that now is the time to reexamine the basic principles which underpin Anglo-American cataloguing codes and that MARC formats should be looked at to see how they can evolve towards a future, improved structure for communicating bibliographic and authority information
    Source
    OCLC newsletter. 1996, no.220, S.20-22
  10. Eden, B.L.: Metadata and librarianship : will MARC survive? (2004) 0.00 
    0.003108885 = product of:
  0.021762194 = sum of:
    0.010128049 = weight(_text_:information in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010128049 = score(doc=4750,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 4750, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4750)
    0.011634145 = product of:
      0.02326829 = sum of:
        0.02326829 = weight(_text_:22 in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02326829 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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. Oehlschläger, S.: Umstieg auf MARC21 (2007) 0.00 
    0.0029967064 = product of:
  0.041953888 = sum of:
    0.041953888 = product of:
      0.083907776 = sum of:
        0.083907776 = weight(_text_:datenmodell in 555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083907776 = score(doc=555,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19304088 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.43466327 = fieldWeight in 555, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=555)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Content
    Kernelement des Umstiegs ist die Entwicklung einer verbindlichen Gesamt-Konkordanz von MAB2 nach MARC 21. Im Jahr 2005 beschäftigte sich die Expertengruppe Datenformate eingehend mit dem Zielformat MARC 21 und dem zugrunde liegenden Datenmodell. Ins Zentrum der Aufmerksamkeit rückten die Analyse und Bewertung von Unterschieden zwischen MAB2 und MARC 21 und die Suche nach Lösungen, damit die vorhandenen Daten möglichst ohne Verlust transportiert werden können. Ein wesentlicher Punkt war dabei das Mapping mehrbändiger Werke, die in MAB2 anders abgebildet werden als in MARC 21. Die Festlegungen der Expertengruppe Datenformate zur Abbildung von mehrbändigen begrenzten Werken in MARC 21 mit Beispielen sind bereits im Dezember auf der Homepage der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek veröffentlicht worden."
  12. Tosaka, Y.; Park, J.-r.: RDA: Resource description & access : a survey of the current state of the art (2013) 0.00 
    0.0029649907 = product of:
  0.020754933 = sum of:
    0.008353474 = weight(_text_:information in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008353474 = score(doc=677,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
    0.012401459 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012401459 = score(doc=677,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Resource Description & Access (RDA) is intended to provide a flexible and extensible framework that can accommodate all types of content and media within rapidly evolving digital environments while also maintaining compatibility with the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2). The cataloging community is grappling with practical issues in navigating the transition from AACR2 to RDA; there is a definite need to evaluate major subject areas and broader themes in information organization under the new RDA paradigm. This article aims to accomplish this task through a thorough and critical review of the emerging RDA literature published from 2005 to 2011. The review mostly concerns key areas of difference between RDA and AACR2, the relationship of the new cataloging code to metadata standards, the impact on encoding standards such as Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), end user considerations, and practitioners' views on RDA implementation and training. Future research will require more in-depth studies of RDA's expected benefits and the manner in which the new cataloging code will improve resource retrieval and bibliographic control for users and catalogers alike over AACR2. The question as to how the cataloging community can best move forward to the post-AACR2/MARC environment must be addressed carefully so as to chart the future of bibliographic control in the evolving environment of information production, management, and use.
    Series
    Advances in information science
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.651-662
  13. Weber, L.B.: Reading formatting MARC AMC (1990) 0.00 
    0.0028541351 = product of:
  0.019978944 = sum of:
    0.006682779 = weight(_text_:information in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006682779 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 484, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=484)
    0.0132961655 = product of:
      0.026592331 = sum of:
        0.026592331 = weight(_text_:22 in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026592331 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 484, 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=484)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses how archivists use the MARC AMC format to exchange information about archival materials. The paper explains the modifications that MARC AMC introduced to the MARC bibliographic formats; gives examples of a record in generic USMARC AMC, RLIN AMC, and OCLC AMC; and considers the possible impact of format integration. The paper concludes with some thoughts about the changes that MARC AMC is causing in the archival profession.
    Date
    8. 1.2007 14:22:51
  14. 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) 0.00 
    0.0028433804 = product of:
  0.019903662 = sum of:
    0.008269517 = weight(_text_:information in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008269517 = score(doc=2848,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
    0.011634145 = product of:
      0.02326829 = sum of:
        0.02326829 = weight(_text_:22 in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02326829 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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
  15. Avram, H.D.: Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC): 1961-1974 (2009) 0.00 
    0.0028433804 = product of:
  0.019903662 = sum of:
    0.008269517 = weight(_text_:information in 3844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008269517 = score(doc=3844,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 3844, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3844)
    0.011634145 = product of:
      0.02326829 = sum of:
        0.02326829 = weight(_text_:22 in 3844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02326829 = score(doc=3844,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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
  16. Fattahi, R.: ¬A uniform approach to the indexing of cataloguing data in online library systems (1997) 0.00 
    0.0028419765 = product of:
  0.019893834 = sum of:
    0.0050120843 = weight(_text_:information in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050120843 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
    0.014881751 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014881751 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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
  17. Concise UNIMARC Classification Format : Draft 5 (20000125) (2000) 0.00 
    0.0028346193 = product of:
  0.03968467 = sum of:
    0.03968467 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03968467 = score(doc=4421,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = 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)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Theme
    Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval
  18. UNIMARC manual : IFLA UBCIM Programme (1987) 0.00 
    0.0027161965 = product of:
  0.03802675 = sum of:
    0.03802675 = weight(_text_:system in 62) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03802675 = score(doc=62,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.49211764 = fieldWeight in 62, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=62)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    LCSH
    UNIMARC System
    Subject
    UNIMARC System
  19. Matoria, R.K.; Upadhyay, P.K.: Migration of data from one library management system to another : a case study in India (2004) 0.00 
    0.002688897 = product of:
  0.037644558 = sum of:
    0.037644558 = weight(_text_:system in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037644558 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.4871716 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
  20. 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) 0.00 
    0.0024371832 = product of:
  0.017060282 = sum of:
    0.0070881573 = weight(_text_:information in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070881573 = score(doc=1183,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
    0.009972124 = product of:
      0.019944249 = sum of:
        0.019944249 = weight(_text_:22 in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019944249 = score(doc=1183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 143
  • d 37
  • f 6
  • pl 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 154
  • m 16
  • el 9
  • s 9
  • n 3
  • x 3
  • b 2
  • ? 1
  • l 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications