Eden, B.L.: Metadata and librarianship : will MARC survive? (2004)
0.00
0.0030858838 = product of:
0.021601185 = sum of:
0.012233062 = weight(_text_:information in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012233062 = score(doc=4750,freq=6.0), product of:
0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = 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)
0.009368123 = product of:
0.028104367 = sum of:
0.028104367 = weight(_text_:22 in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028104367 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.029633347 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
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
