-
Johnson, B.C.: XML and MARC : which is "right"? (2001)
0.12
0.121420205 = product of:
0.19427232 = sum of:
0.048334967 = weight(_text_:world in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048334967 = score(doc=5423,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.29726875 = fieldWeight in 5423, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5423)
0.06422812 = weight(_text_:wide in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06422812 = score(doc=5423,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18743214 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.342674 = fieldWeight in 5423, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5423)
0.049278118 = weight(_text_:web in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049278118 = score(doc=5423,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 5423, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5423)
0.017463064 = weight(_text_:information in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017463064 = score(doc=5423,freq=6.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 5423, 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=5423)
0.014968057 = product of:
0.029936114 = sum of:
0.029936114 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029936114 = score(doc=5423,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 5423, 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=5423)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.625 = coord(5/8)
- Abstract
- This article explores recent discussions about appropriate mark-up conventions for library information intended for use on the World Wide Web. In particular, the question of whether the MARC 21 format will continue to be useful and whether the time is right for a full-fledged conversion effort to XML is explored. The author concludes that the MARC format will be relevant well into the future, and its use will not hamper access to bibliographic information via the web. Early XML exploratory efforts carried out at the Stanford University's Lane Medical Library are reported on. Although these efforts are a promising start, much more consultation and investigation is needed to arrive at broadly acceptable standards for XML library information encoding and retrieval.
-
Nix, M.: ¬Die praktische Einsetzbarkeit des CIDOC CRM in Informationssystemen im Bereich des Kulturerbes (2004)
0.08
0.08200845 = product of:
0.1640169 = sum of:
0.04882569 = weight(_text_:world in 3742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04882569 = score(doc=3742,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.30028677 = fieldWeight in 3742, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3742)
0.0648802 = weight(_text_:wide in 3742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0648802 = score(doc=3742,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18743214 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.34615302 = fieldWeight in 3742, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3742)
0.04310937 = weight(_text_:web in 3742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04310937 = score(doc=3742,freq=6.0), product of:
0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 3742, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3742)
0.007201646 = weight(_text_:information in 3742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007201646 = score(doc=3742,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3742, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3742)
0.5 = coord(4/8)
- Abstract
- Es steht uns eine praktisch unbegrenzte Menge an Informationen über das World Wide Web zur Verfügung. Das Problem, das daraus erwächst, ist, diese Menge zu bewältigen und an die Information zu gelangen, die im Augenblick benötigt wird. Das überwältigende Angebot zwingt sowohl professionelle Anwender als auch Laien zu suchen, ungeachtet ihrer Ansprüche an die gewünschten Informationen. Um dieses Suchen effizienter zu gestalten, gibt es einerseits die Möglichkeit, leistungsstärkere Suchmaschinen zu entwickeln. Eine andere Möglichkeit ist, Daten besser zu strukturieren, um an die darin enthaltenen Informationen zu gelangen. Hoch strukturierte Daten sind maschinell verarbeitbar, sodass ein Teil der Sucharbeit automatisiert werden kann. Das Semantic Web ist die Vision eines weiterentwickelten World Wide Web, in dem derart strukturierten Daten von so genannten Softwareagenten verarbeitet werden. Die fortschreitende inhaltliche Strukturierung von Daten wird Semantisierung genannt. Im ersten Teil der Arbeit sollen einige wichtige Methoden der inhaltlichen Strukturierung von Daten skizziert werden, um die Stellung von Ontologien innerhalb der Semantisierung zu klären. Im dritten Kapitel wird der Aufbau und die Aufgabe des CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM), einer Domain Ontologie im Bereich des Kulturerbes dargestellt. Im darauf folgenden praktischen Teil werden verschiedene Ansätze zur Verwendung des CRM diskutiert und umgesetzt. Es wird ein Vorschlag zur Implementierung des Modells in XML erarbeitet. Das ist eine Möglichkeit, die dem Datentransport dient. Außerdem wird der Entwurf einer Klassenbibliothek in Java dargelegt, auf die die Verarbeitung und Nutzung des Modells innerhalb eines Informationssystems aufbauen kann.
-
Miller, D.R.: XML: Libraries' strategic opportunity (2001)
0.08
0.07692084 = product of:
0.15384167 = sum of:
0.034524977 = weight(_text_:world in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034524977 = score(doc=1467,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
0.045877226 = weight(_text_:wide in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045877226 = score(doc=1467,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18743214 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
0.060965855 = weight(_text_:web in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060965855 = score(doc=1467,freq=12.0), product of:
0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
0.012473618 = weight(_text_:information in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012473618 = score(doc=1467,freq=6.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
0.5 = coord(4/8)
- Abstract
- XML (eXtensible Markup Language) is fast gaining favor as the universal format for data and document exchange -- in effect becoming the lingua franca of the Information Age. Currently, "library information" is at a particular disadvantage on the rapidly evolving World Wide Web. Why? Despite libraries'explorations of web catalogs, scanning projects, digital data repositories, and creation of web pages galore, there remains a digital divide. The core of libraries' data troves are stored in proprietary formats of integrated library systems (ILS) and in the complex and arcane MARC formats -- both restricted chiefly to the province of technical services and systems librarians. Even they are hard-pressed to extract and integrate this wealth of data with resources from outside this rarefied environment. Segregation of library information underlies many difficulties: producing standard bibliographic citations from MARC data, automatically creating new materials lists (including new web resources) on a particular topic, exchanging data with our vendors, and even migrating from one ILS to another. Why do we continue to hobble our potential by embracing these self-imposed limitations? Most ILSs began in libraries, which soon recognized the pitfalls of do-it-yourself solutions. Thus, we wisely anticipated the necessity for standards. However, with the advent of the web, we soon found "our" collections and a flood of new resources appearing in digital format on opposite sides of the divide. If we do not act quickly to integrate library resources with mainstream web resources, we are in grave danger of becoming marginalized
-
Kaiser, M.; Lieder, H.J.; Majcen, K.; Vallant, H.: New ways of sharing and using authority information : the LEAF project (2003)
0.05
0.04792053 = product of:
0.076672845 = sum of:
0.017262489 = weight(_text_:world in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017262489 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.10616741 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
0.022938613 = weight(_text_:wide in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022938613 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18743214 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.122383565 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
0.024889207 = weight(_text_:web in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024889207 = score(doc=1166,freq=8.0), product of:
0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
0.006236809 = weight(_text_:information in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006236809 = score(doc=1166,freq=6.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.005345735 = product of:
0.01069147 = sum of:
0.01069147 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01069147 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.625 = coord(5/8)
- 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.
-
Salgáné, M.M.: Our electronic era and bibliographic informations computer-related bibliographic data formats, metadata formats and BDML (2005)
0.03
0.029153774 = product of:
0.077743396 = sum of:
0.03670178 = weight(_text_:wide in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03670178 = score(doc=3005,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18743214 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.1958137 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
0.028158922 = weight(_text_:web in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028158922 = score(doc=3005,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
0.012882696 = weight(_text_:information in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012882696 = score(doc=3005,freq=10.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.1734784 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- Using new communication technologies libraries must face continuously new questions, possibilities and expectations. This study discusses library-related aspects of our electronic era and how computer-related data formats affect bibliographic dataprocessing to give a summary of the most important results. First bibliographic formats for the exchange of bibliographic and related information in the machine-readable form between different types of computer systems were created more than 30 years ago. The evolution of information technologies leads to the improvement of computer systems. In addition to the development of computers and media types Internet has a great influence on data structure as well. Since the introduction of MARC bibliographic format, technology of data exchange between computers and between different computer systems has reached a very sophisticated stage and has contributed to the creation of new standards in this field. Today libraries work with this new infrastructure that induces many challenges. One of the most significant challenges is moving from a relatively homogenous bibliographic environment to a diverse one. Despite these challenges such changes are achievable and necessary to exploit possibilities of new metadata and technologies like the Internet and XML (Extensible Markup Language). XML is an open standard, a universal language for data on the Web. XML is nearly six-years-old standard designed for the description and computer-based management of (semi)-structured data and structured texts. XML gives developers the power to deliver structured data from a wide variety of applications and it is also an ideal format from server-to-server transfer of structured data. XML also isn't limited for Internet use and is an especially valuable tool in the field of library. In fact, XML's main strength - organizing information - makes it perfect for exchanging data between different systems. Tools that work with the XML can be used to process XML records without incurring additional costs associated with one's own software development. In addition, XML is also a suitable format for library web services. The Department of Computer-related Graphic Design and Library and Information Sciences of Debrecen University launched the BDML (Bibliographic Description Markup Language) development project in order to standardize bibliogrphic description with the help of XML.
- Source
- Librarianship in the information age: Proceedings of the 13th BOBCATSSS Symposium, 31 January - 2 February 2005 in Budapest, Hungary. Eds.: Marte Langeland u.a
-
Helmkamp, K.; Oehlschläger, S.: Standardisierung : Ein Meilenstein auf dem Weg zur Internationalisierung; Im Jahr 2007 erfolgt der Umstieg auf MARC 21 (2006)
0.03
0.028123265 = product of:
0.05624653 = sum of:
0.017262489 = weight(_text_:world in 65) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017262489 = score(doc=65,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.10616741 = fieldWeight in 65, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=65)
0.022938613 = weight(_text_:wide in 65) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022938613 = score(doc=65,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18743214 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.122383565 = fieldWeight in 65, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=65)
0.012444603 = weight(_text_:web in 65) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012444603 = score(doc=65,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.09014259 = fieldWeight in 65, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=65)
0.003600823 = weight(_text_:information in 65) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.003600823 = score(doc=65,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.048488684 = fieldWeight in 65, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=65)
0.5 = coord(4/8)
- Content
- "Mit der steigenden Zahl von digitalen und digitalisierten Dokumenten, die im World Wide Web zur Verfügung stehen, verliert der aktuelle Speicherort einer Publikation seine Bedeutung. Entscheidend für die Forschung sind vielmehr Auffindbarkeit und schnelle Nutzungsmöglichkeit von Informationen. Global in elektronischen Umgebungen zu arbeiten, Daten, Informationen, Texte zu tauschen und zu mischen, ist zur täglichen Routine für Wissenschaftler und Bibliothekare geworden. Das Interesse von Wissenschaftlern ist nicht auf ihre jeweilige eigene nationale und kulturelle Umgebung beschränkt. Sie benötigen Informationen über Dokumente und Daten aus der ganzen Welt. Gleichzeitig wollen sie die eigenen Forschungsergebnisse in der internationalen Forschungsgemeinschaft zur Diskussion stellen. Sprachraumübergreifende Standards für Metadaten und ein reibungsloser Metadatenaustausch sind Voraussetzung für die wissenschaftliche Kommunikation und für den individuellen Erfolg des einzelnen Forschers. Deutschsprachige und ausländische Bibliotheken verwenden derzeit noch unterschiedliche Standards bei der Speicherung und dem Austausch von Katalogdaten. Während in Deutschland und Österreich das Maschinelle Austauschformat für Bibliotheken MAB2 verwendet wird, ist das Format Machine Readable Cataloguing MARC 21 der weltweit am weitesten verbreitete Standard. Der Standardisierungsausschuss hat in seiner 9. Sitzung am 15. Dezember 2004 wegweisende Beschlüsse zur Internationalisierung der deutschen Standards gefasst.' Diese sehen als ersten Meilenstein die flächendeckende Einführung von MARC 21 als Austauschformat vor. Die Verbundsysteme als größte Datenproduzenten haben sich verpflichtet, MARC 21 einheitlich, das heißt ohne verbundspezifische Besonderheiten, einzuführen und anzuwenden. Gleichzeitig werden die bisher unterschiedlichen Verbundrichtlinien vereinheitlicht. Die Einführung von MARC 21 bildet zusammen mit den Bestrebungen zur Verbesserung der Zusammenarbeit der Verbundsysteme einen entscheidenden Schritt, die Voraussetzungen für Fremddatenübernahme und Datentausch für die deutschen Bibliotheken sowohl auf nationaler als auch auf internationaler Ebene erheblich zu verbessern.
Aufbau und Pflege von Kontakten zu internationalen Gremien und Experten Der Arbeitsschwerpunkt Aufbau und Pflege von Kontakten zu internationalen Gremien und Experten bezieht sich in erster Linie auf die Teilnahme an den Sitzungen des Machine Readable Bibliographic Information Committee (MARBI), zu dessen wichtigsten Aufgaben die Pflege und Weiterentwicklung des MARC-Formats und somit auch die Entscheidung über Änderungsanträge gehören. Kern von MARBI sind drei Ex-Officio-Vertreter der Library of Congress (LC), von Library and Archives Canada (LAC) und der British Library. Dazu kommen neun Mitglieder mit Stimmrecht aus verschiedenen Untergliederungen der ALA und von anderen großen Institutionen, Die Sitzungen von MARBI finden jeweils im Januar und Juni in Verbindung mit den Tagungen der American Library Association (ALA) statt und sind offen für interessierte Gäste und Zuhörer. Im Jahr 2006 nahmen Vertreter der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek und der Expertengruppe Datenformate an Sitzungen in San Antonio sowie New Orleans teil und nutzten dabei auch die Gelegenheit, im Rahmen von Arbeitstreffen mit MARC-21-Experten wichtige Details des geplanten Umstiegs intensiv und eingehend zu erörtern. Die Vorbereitungen für den Formatumstieg liegen im Wesentlichen im Zeitplan. Die Zusammenarbeit mit internationalen Gremien und Experten, insbesondere mit MARBI, wird im Jahr 2007 fortgeführt und intensiviert werden, weitere Workshops befinden sich bereits in der Planung. Im Herbst wird eine Arbeitsgruppe aus Vertretern der Verbünde eingesetzt, die den Umstieg auf der operativen Ebene konkret planen soll. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek als Träger des Projekts ist zuversichtlich, dass der Umstieg auf MARC 21 im Jahre 2007 als gut vorbereiteter, konzertierter und flächendeckender Schritt in allen Verbünden durchgeführt werden kann."
-
Helmkamp, K.; Oehlschläger, S.: ¬Die Internationalisierung deutscher Standards : auf dem Weg von MAB2 zu MARC 21. "Access" - der Schlüssel zum Erfolg (2006)
0.03
0.027638996 = product of:
0.07370399 = sum of:
0.024167484 = weight(_text_:world in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024167484 = score(doc=4873,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.14863437 = fieldWeight in 4873, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4873)
0.03211406 = weight(_text_:wide in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03211406 = score(doc=4873,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18743214 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.171337 = fieldWeight in 4873, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4873)
0.017422445 = weight(_text_:web in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017422445 = score(doc=4873,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.12619963 = fieldWeight in 4873, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4873)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- Seit einigen Jahren ist der Begriff "Access" oder "Zugang" in aller Munde. Er bezieht sich auf den Zugang zu Informationsressourcen im World Wide Web und stellt eine zentrale Voraussetzung für den Erfolg oder Misserfolg in der modernen Gesellschaft dar. Viele Lebensbereiche sind auf einen ungehinderten Zugang zu digitalen Ressourcen angewiesen. Für ein Wirtschaftsunternehmen ist es im 21. Jahrhundert nicht mehr nur wichtig, über traditionelle Produktionsfaktoren, wie Maschinen oder Kapital, zu verfügen, von gleicher Bedeutung ist der Zugang auf Informationen, die intern und extern zur Verfügung stehen, und die Grundlage für ein umfassendes Wissensmanagement bilden. Damit kann der Innovationsprozess beschleunigt und das eigene Risiko vermindert werden, beispielsweise wenn bei der Produktentwicklung die Zeit bis zur Markteinführung verringert und damit ein wesentlicher Vorteil gegenüber den Konkurrenten erzielt wird. Auch die Welt der Wissenschaft hat sich in den letzten Jahrzehnten sehr verändert. Das Interesse von Wissenschaftlern ist nicht auf ihre jeweilige eigene nationale und kulturelle Umgebung beschränkt. Sie benötigen Informationen über Dokumente und Daten aus der ganzen Welt. Gleichzeitig wollen sie die eigenen Forschungsergebnisse in der internationalen Forschungsgemeinschaft zur Diskussion stellen. Schließlich ist der Zugang zu digitalen und konventionellen Ressourcen eine Voraussetzung für den Erfolg in dynamischen und global agierenden Gesellschaften und Systemen. Diese sind davon abhängig, dass Wissen ständig neu generiert und organisiert wird, und propagieren das lebenslange Lernen. Das Konzept des lebenslangen Lernens richtet sich an den Einzelnen, der seine Informationskompetenz ständig erweitern soll. Dadurch wird das Bedürfnis nach Bildungsangeboten im weitesten Sinne und folglich nach einem ungehinderten Zugang zu ihnen geweckt. All dies zeigt, dass ein reibungsloser Metadatenaustausch auf der Grundlage von sprachraumübergreifenden Standards eine wichtige Voraussetzung für Erfolge in ganz unterschiedlichen Bereichen ist. Daraus erwachsen wichtige Aufgaben für Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare, die Daten über Dokumente bereitstellen und den Nachweis und Zugang zu ihnen garantieren. Deutschsprachige und ausländische Bibliotheken verwenden derzeit noch unterschiedliche Standards bei der Speicherung und dem Austausch von Katalogdaten. Während in Deutschland und Österreich das Maschinelle Austauschformat für Bibliotheken MAB2 verwendet wird, ist das Format Machine Readable Cataloguing MARC 21 der weltweit am weitesten verbreitete Standard.
-
Taylor, M.; Dickmeiss, A.: Delivering MARC/XML records from the Library of Congress catalogue using the open protocols SRW/U and Z39.50 (2005)
0.02
0.024930501 = product of:
0.06648134 = sum of:
0.04142997 = weight(_text_:world in 4350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04142997 = score(doc=4350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 4350, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4350)
0.012221599 = weight(_text_:information in 4350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012221599 = score(doc=4350,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4350, 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=4350)
0.012829763 = product of:
0.025659526 = sum of:
0.025659526 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025659526 = score(doc=4350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 4350, 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=4350)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- The MARC standard for representing catalogue records and the Z39.50 standard for locating and retrieving them have facilitated interoperability in the library domain for more than a decade. With the increasing ubiquity of XML, these standards are being superseded by MARCXML and MarcXchange for record representation and SRW/U for searching and retrieval. Service providers moving from the older standards to the newer generally need to support both old and new forms during the transition period. YAZ Proxy uses a novel approach to provide SRW/MARCXML access to the Library of Congress catalogue, by translating requests into Z39.50 and querying the older system directly. As a fringe benefit, it also greatly accelerates Z39.50 access.
- Footnote
- Vortrag, World Library and Information Congress: 71th IFLA General Conference and Council "Libraries - A voyage of discovery", August 14th - 18th 2005, Oslo, Norway.
- Series
- 121 UNIMARC with Information Technology ; 065-E
-
McCallum, S.H.: Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC): 1975-2007 (2009)
0.02
0.020888712 = product of:
0.05570323 = sum of:
0.029867046 = weight(_text_:web in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029867046 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3841, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3841)
0.008641975 = weight(_text_:information in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008641975 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3841, 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=3841)
0.017194213 = product of:
0.034388427 = sum of:
0.034388427 = weight(_text_:22 in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034388427 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- 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
-
DFG und Mellon-Foundation fördern internationalen Datenaustausch (2006)
0.02
0.02010055 = product of:
0.0804022 = sum of:
0.034524977 = weight(_text_:world in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034524977 = score(doc=5070,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 5070, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5070)
0.045877226 = weight(_text_:wide in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045877226 = score(doc=5070,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18743214 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 5070, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5070)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Content
- "Der aktuelle Speicherort einer Publikation verliert angesichts der steigenden Zahl an digital vorliegenden und über das World Wide Weh verfügbaren Publikationen seine Bedeutung. Entscheidend für die Forschung sind Aufindbarkeit und schnelle Nutzungsmöglichkeit der Informationen. Global zu arbeiten, Daten, Informationen und Texte zu tauschen ist zur täglichen Routine für Wissenschaftler und Bibliothekare geworden. Deutschsprachige und ausländische Bibliotheken verwenden derzeit noch unterschiedliche Standards bei der Speicherung und dem Austausch von Katalogdaten. Die von der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft und der Andrew W. Mellon Foundation geförderten Projekte verfolgen das Ziel, die Daten deutschsprachiger Bibliotheken weltweit sichtbar zu machen. Das Interesse von Wissenschaftlern ist nicht auf ihre jeweilige eigene nationale und kulturelle Umgebung beschränkt. Sie benötigen Informationen über Dokumente und Daten aus der ganzen Welt. Gleichzeitig wollen sie die eigenen Forschungsergebnisse in der internationalen Forschungsgemeinschaft zur Diskussion stellen. Sprachraumübergreifende Standards für Metadaten und deren reibungsloser gegenseitiger Austausch sind Voraussetzung für die wissenschaftliche Kommunikation und für den individuellen Erfolg des einzelnen Forschers. Die Deutsche Bibliothek pflegt seit vielen Jahren Kooperationsbeziehungen auf nationaler und internationaler Ebene. Dazu gehören die Entwicklung und Anwendung von gemeinsamen Regeln und Standards sowie Produktion und Vertrieb von bibliografischen Dienstleistungen und die Pflege kooperativ geführter Datenbanken, insbesondere für Normdaten. Einen weiteren Schwerpunkt bilden Entwicklung und Anwendung moderner Technologien für die Langzeitarchivierung der Bestände im Rahmen internationaler Kooperationen, unabhängig davon, ob die Publikationen auf Papier, Mikrofilm oder digital vorliegen."
-
Qin, J.: Representation and organization of information in the Web space : from MARC to XML (2000)
0.02
0.01925451 = product of:
0.07701804 = sum of:
0.05973409 = weight(_text_:web in 3918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05973409 = score(doc=3918,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 3918, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3918)
0.01728395 = weight(_text_:information in 3918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01728395 = score(doc=3918,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3918, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3918)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
-
Tennant, R.: ¬A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty-first century (2004)
0.02
0.018061113 = product of:
0.07224445 = sum of:
0.039822727 = weight(_text_:web in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039822727 = score(doc=2845,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
0.03242172 = product of:
0.06484344 = sum of:
0.06484344 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06484344 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- 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
-
ISO 25964 Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies (2008)
0.02
0.016770419 = product of:
0.04472112 = sum of:
0.020714985 = weight(_text_:world in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020714985 = score(doc=1169,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.12740089 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
0.009662023 = weight(_text_:information in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009662023 = score(doc=1169,freq=10.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.1301088 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
0.014344112 = product of:
0.028688224 = sum of:
0.028688224 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028688224 = score(doc=1169,freq=10.0), product of:
0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.22419426 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- T.1: Today's thesauri are mostly electronic tools, having moved on from the paper-based era when thesaurus standards were first developed. They are built and maintained with the support of software and need to integrate with other software, such as search engines and content management systems. Whereas in the past thesauri were designed for information professionals trained in indexing and searching, today there is a demand for vocabularies that untrained users will find to be intuitive. ISO 25964 makes the transition needed for the world of electronic information management. However, part 1 retains the assumption that human intellect is usually involved in the selection of indexing terms and in the selection of search terms. If both the indexer and the searcher are guided to choose the same term for the same concept, then relevant documents will be retrieved. This is the main principle underlying thesaurus design, even though a thesaurus built for human users may also be applied in situations where computers make the choices. Efficient exchange of data is a vital component of thesaurus management and exploitation. Hence the inclusion in this standard of recommendations for exchange formats and protocols. Adoption of these will facilitate interoperability between thesaurus management systems and the other computer applications, such as indexing and retrieval systems, that will utilize the data. Thesauri are typically used in post-coordinate retrieval systems, but may also be applied to hierarchical directories, pre-coordinate indexes and classification systems. Increasingly, thesaurus applications need to mesh with others, such as automatic categorization schemes, free-text search systems, etc. Part 2 of ISO 25964 describes additional types of structured vocabulary and gives recommendations to enable interoperation of the vocabularies at all stages of the information storage and retrieval process.
T.2: The ability to identify and locate relevant information among vast collections and other resources is a major and pressing challenge today. Several different types of vocabulary are in use for this purpose. Some of the most widely used vocabularies were designed a hundred years ago and have been evolving steadily. A different generation of vocabularies is now emerging, designed to exploit the electronic media more effectively. A good understanding of the previous generation is still essential for effective access to collections indexed with them. An important object of ISO 25964 as a whole is to support data exchange and other forms of interoperability in circumstances in which more than one structured vocabulary is applied within one retrieval system or network. Sometimes one vocabulary has to be mapped to another, and it is important to understand both the potential and the limitations of such mappings. In other systems, a thesaurus is mapped to a classification scheme, or an ontology to a thesaurus. Comprehensive interoperability needs to cover the whole range of vocabulary types, whether young or old. Concepts in different vocabularies are related only in that they have the same or similar meaning. However, the meaning can be found in a number of different aspects within each particular type of structured vocabulary: - within terms or captions selected in different languages; - in the notation assigned indicating a place within a larger hierarchy; - in the definition, scope notes, history notes and other notes that explain the significance of that concept; and - in explicit relationships to other concepts or entities within the same vocabulary. In order to create mappings from one structured vocabulary to another it is first necessary to understand, within the context of each different type of structured vocabulary, the significance and relative importance of each of the different elements in defining the meaning of that particular concept. ISO 25964-1 describes the key characteristics of thesauri along with additional advice on best practice. ISO 25964-2 focuses on other types of vocabulary and does not attempt to cover all aspects of good practice. It concentrates on those aspects which need to be understood if one of the vocabularies is to work effectively alongside one or more of the others. Recognizing that a new standard cannot be applied to some existing vocabularies, this part of ISO 25964 provides informative description alongside the recommendations, the aim of which is to enable users and system developers to interpret and implement the existing vocabularies effectively. The remainder of ISO 25964-2 deals with the principles and practicalities of establishing mappings between vocabularies.
- Issue
- Pt.1: Thesauri for information retrieval - Pt.2: Interoperability with other vocabularies.
-
Cranefield, S.: Networked knowledge representation and exchange using UML and RDF (2001)
0.02
0.016685296 = product of:
0.06674118 = sum of:
0.049278118 = weight(_text_:web in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049278118 = score(doc=5896,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
0.017463064 = weight(_text_:information in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017463064 = score(doc=5896,freq=6.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 5896, 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=5896)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- This paper proposes the use of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) as a language for modelling ontologies for Web resources and the knowledge contained within them. To provide a mechanism for serialising and processing object diagrams representing knowledge, a pair of XSI-T stylesheets have been developed to map from XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) encodings of class diagrams to corresponding RDF schemas and to Java classes representing the concepts in the ontologies. The Java code includes methods for marshalling and unmarshalling object-oriented information between in-memory data structures and RDF serialisations of that information. This provides a convenient mechanism for Java applications to share knowledge on the Web
- Source
- Journal of digital information. 1(2001) no.8
-
Skvortsov, V.; Zhlobinskaya, O.; Pashkova, A.: UNIMARC XML slim schema : living in new environment (2005)
0.02
0.016449507 = product of:
0.06579803 = sum of:
0.048334967 = weight(_text_:world in 4335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048334967 = score(doc=4335,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.29726875 = fieldWeight in 4335, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4335)
0.017463064 = weight(_text_:information in 4335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017463064 = score(doc=4335,freq=6.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 4335, 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=4335)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- The paper discusses the role of XML and its perspectives in library information systems, particularly with regards to basic functions of bibliographic formats - storage and transportation of the data. Slim XML Schema for UNIMARC representation is presented, its main features being lossless conversion from MARC to XML, roundtripability from XML back to MARC, support for embedded fields and extended range of indicator values, independence from any specific dialect of MARC format, stability to any changes of the format.
- Footnote
- Vortrag, World Library and Information Congress: 71th IFLA General Conference and Council "Libraries - A voyage of discovery", August 14th - 18th 2005, Oslo, Norway.
- Series
- 121 UNIMARC with Information Technology ; 064-E
-
McCallum, S.H.: MARCXML sampler (2005)
0.02
0.016449507 = product of:
0.06579803 = sum of:
0.048334967 = weight(_text_:world in 4361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048334967 = score(doc=4361,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.29726875 = fieldWeight in 4361, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4361)
0.017463064 = weight(_text_:information in 4361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017463064 = score(doc=4361,freq=6.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 4361, 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=4361)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- At the IFLA conference in Glasgow, three years ago, the Information Technology Section organized a workshop on metadata. At that workshop MARCXML was presented, along with plans and expectations for its use. This paper is an update to that report. It reviews the development of an XML schema for MARC 21 and the MARCXML tool kit of transformations. The close relationship of MARCXML to the recent ISO standards work associated with MARC in XML is described. Sketches of interesting applications follow with uses that range from MARCXML as a switching format to a maintenance tool to a record communication format for new XML-based protocols.
- Footnote
- Vortrag, World Library and Information Congress: 71th IFLA General Conference and Council "Libraries - A voyage of discovery", August 14th - 18th 2005, Oslo, Norway.
- Series
- 121 UNIMARC with Information Technology ; 175-E121
-
MacCallum, S.H.: Harmonization of USMARC, CANMARC, and UKMARC (2000)
0.02
0.01578855 = product of:
0.0631542 = sum of:
0.04882569 = weight(_text_:world in 185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04882569 = score(doc=185,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.30028677 = fieldWeight in 185, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=185)
0.014328511 = product of:
0.028657023 = sum of:
0.028657023 = weight(_text_:22 in 185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028657023 = score(doc=185,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 185, 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=185)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
- Footnote
- Beitrag in einem Themenheft "What in the World...Cataloging on an International Scale": papers from the ALCTS preconference, June 26, 1998 "What in the World...Cataloging on an International Scale". ALCTS Preconference, Washington, D.C.
-
Guenther, R.S.: Using the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) for resource description : guidelines and applications (2004)
0.01
0.013726201 = product of:
0.054904804 = sum of:
0.03484489 = weight(_text_:web in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03484489 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 2837, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2837)
0.020059915 = product of:
0.04011983 = sum of:
0.04011983 = weight(_text_:22 in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04011983 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- 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
-
IFLA Cataloguing Principles : steps towards an International Cataloguing Code. Report from the 1st Meeting of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code, Frankfurt 2003 (2004)
0.01
0.012928277 = product of:
0.034475405 = sum of:
0.019530276 = weight(_text_:world in 2312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019530276 = score(doc=2312,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.120114714 = fieldWeight in 2312, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2312)
0.009955682 = weight(_text_:web in 2312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009955682 = score(doc=2312,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.07211407 = fieldWeight in 2312, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2312)
0.004989447 = weight(_text_:information in 2312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.004989447 = score(doc=2312,freq=6.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.0671879 = fieldWeight in 2312, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2312)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- BK
- 06.04 / Ausbildung, Beruf, Organisationen <Information und Dokumentation>
- Classification
- 06.04 / Ausbildung, Beruf, Organisationen <Information und Dokumentation>
- Footnote
- Rez. in: KO 31(2004) no.4, S.255-257: (P. Riva): "Cataloguing standardization at the international level can be viewed as proceeding in a series of milestone conferences. This meeting, the first in a series which will cover different regions of the world, will take its place in that progression. The first IFLA Meeting of Experts an an International Cataloguing Code (IME ICC), held July 28-30, 2003 at Die Deutsche Bibliothek in Frankfurt, gathered representatives of almost all European countries as well as three of the four AACR author countries. As explained in the introduction by Barbara Tillett, chair of the IME ICC planning committee, the plan is for five meetings in total. Subsequent meetings are to take place in Buenos Aires, Argentina (held August 17-18, 2004) for Latin America and the Carribean, to be followed by Alexandria, Egypt (2005) for the Middle East, Seoul, South Korea (2006) for Asia, and Durban, South Africa (2007) for Africa. The impetus for planning these meetings was triggered by the 40th anniversary of the Paris Principles, approved at the International Conference an Cataloguing Principles held in 1961. Many will welcome the timely publication of the reports and papers from this important conference in book form. The original conference website (details given an p. 176) which includes most of the same material, is still extant, but the reports and papers gathered into this volume will be referred to by cataloguing rule makers long after the web as we know it has transformed itself into a new (and quite possibly not backwards compatible) environment.
The book is organized into four sections: introduction and results; presentation papers; background papers; and an appendix. The introduction by Barbara Tillett serves as a summary and report of the IME ICC meeting itself. The statement of the purpose of the meeting bears reporting in full (p. 6): "The goal for this meeting was to increase the ability to share cataloguing information worldwide by promoting standards for the content of bibliographic records and authority records used in library catalogues." The next item is a report summarizing the cataloguing Code comparisons prepared prior to the conference. As a mechanism for discussion, 18 codes were compared with the Paris Principles, the extent of compliance or divergence noted and discussed by representatives from the respective rule-making bodies. During the meeting the presentation of the comparisons took up half of the first day, but for the detailed responses one must return to the IME ICC website. The published summary is very dense, and difficult to follow if one is not very familiar with the Paris Principles or the codes being compared. The main outcome of the meeting follows, this is the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (draft, as approved Dec. 19, 2003 by IME ICC participants), accompanied by a useful Glossary. The most important eontribution of this volume is to serve as the permanent and official record of the Statement as it stands after the first IME ICC meeting. Subsequent meetings will surely suggest modifications and enhancements, but this version of the Statement needs to be widely read and commented on. To this end the website also makes available translations of the Statement into 15 European languages, and the glossary into four languages. Compared to the Paris Principles, this statement covers some familiar ground in the choice of access points and forms of names, but its overall scope is broader, explicitly referring to the role of authority records, entities in bibliographic records and relationships. It concludes with an appendix of "Objectives for the construction of cataloguing codes."
The next section collects three papers, all presented at the meeting by the people best placed to address the topics authoritatively and comprehensively. The first is by John D. Byrum, of the Library of Congress, and Chair of the ISBD Review Group, who clearly and concisely explains the history and role of the ISBDs in "IFLA's ISBD Programme. Purpose, process, and prospects." The next paper, "Brave new FRBR world" is by Patrick Le Boeuf, of the Bibliothèque nationale de France and Chair of the FRBR Review Group (a French version is available an the website). Drawing from his extensive expertise with FRBR, Le Boeuf explains what FRBR is and equally importantly is not, points to its impact in the present context of Code revision, and discusses insights relevant to the working group topics that can be drawn from FRBR. Closing this section is Barbara Tillett's contribution "A Virtual International Authority File," which signals an important change in thinking about international cooperation for bibliographic control. Earlier efforts focussed an getting agreement about form and structure of headings, this view stresses linking authority files to share the intellectual effort yet present headings to the user in the form that is most appropriate culturally.
-
Martin, P.: Conventions and notations for knowledge representation and retrieval (2000)
0.01
0.010674202 = product of:
0.042696808 = sum of:
0.029867046 = weight(_text_:web in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029867046 = score(doc=5070,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 5070, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5070)
0.012829763 = product of:
0.025659526 = sum of:
0.025659526 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025659526 = score(doc=5070,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 5070, 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=5070)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- Much research has focused on the problem of knowledge accessibility, sharing and reuse. Specific languages (e.g. KIF, CG, RDF) and ontologies have been proposed. Common characteristics, conventions or ontological distinctions are beginning to emerge. Since knowledge providers (humans and software agents) must follow common conventions for the knowledge to be widely accessed and re-used, we propose lexical, structural, semantic and ontological conventions based on various knowledge representation projects and our own research. These are minimal conventions that can be followed by most and cover the most common knowledge representation cases. However, agreement and refinements are still required. We also show that a notation can be both readable and expressive by quickly presenting two new notations -- Formalized English (FE) and Frame-CG (FCG) - derived from the CG linear form [9] and Frame-Logics [4]. These notations support the above conventions, and are implemented in our Web-based knowledge representation and document indexation tool, WebKB¹ [7]
