Search (937 results, page 47 of 47)

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 3186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=3186,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3186, 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=3186)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Information processing and management. 52(2016) no.5, S.753-764

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3871, 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=3871)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This study presents preliminary themes surfaced from an ongoing ethnographic study. The research question is: how and where do cultures influence the cataloging practices of using U.S. standards to catalog Chinese materials? The author applies warrant as a lens for evaluating knowledge representation systems, and extends the application from examining classificatory decisions to cataloging decisions. Semantic warrant as a conceptual tool allows us to recognize and name the various rationales behind cataloging decisions, grants us explanatory power, and the language to "visualize" and reflect on the conflicting priorities in cataloging practices. Through participatory observation, the author recorded the cataloging practices of two Chinese catalogers working on the same cataloging project. One of the catalogers is U.S. trained, and another cataloger is a professor of Library and Information Science from China, who is also a subject expert and a cataloger of Chinese special collections. The study shows how the catalogers describe Chinese special collections using many U.S. cataloging and classification standards but from different approaches. The author presents particular cases derived from the fieldwork, with an emphasis on the many layers presented by cultures, principles, standards, and practices of different scope, each of which may represent conflicting warrants. From this, it is made clear that the conflicts of warrants influence cataloging practice. We may view the conflicting warrants as an interpretation of the tension between different semantic warrants and the globalization and localization of cataloging standards.

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 4386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=4386,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4386, 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=4386)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Wir leiden an einer bedauerlichen Knappheit von Information über die Marktlage und Erfahrungen bei den bibliothekarischen DV-Systemen. Das ist jenseits des "Teiches" anders: Jedes Jahr veröffentlicht der Konsultant Marshall Breeding eine umfangreiche Marktübersicht und hält auf seiner Website eine Menge andere Berichte und interessante Übersichten bereit, z.B. "Migration Reports": https://librarytechnology.org/Library Technology Guides. Da sieht man in Tabellen, z.B. auch für Koha, wieviele Anwender von welchen Systemen insgesamt schon zu Koha gewandert sind, die Gesamtzahl ist 3.547! Zu Alma dagegen nur 1151, zu WMS 464, zu Aleph 1036. ("allegro-C" ist nicht dabei, aber es gab ja auch nie irgendwelche Anwender in USA, außer Goethe-Institute, aber die sind wohl nicht erfaßt.) Breedings neueste Marktübersicht für 2018 ist im Journal "American Libraries" veröffentlicht: https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2018/05/01/library-systems-report-2018/

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 4629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=4629,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4629, 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=4629)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.6, S.607-618

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 4676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=4676,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4676, 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=4676)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.1, S.61-70

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 5223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=5223,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5223, 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=5223)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.5, S.488-498

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 5327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=5327,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5327, 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=5327)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.8, S.858-871

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 5464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=5464,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5464, 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=5464)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Purpose Library work is increasingly being explored from the perspective of design. Still, little work has actively explored specific aspects of design as they relate to library cataloging. The purpose of this paper is to dive deeper into the relationship between library cataloging and design by exploring a specific aspect of design - the concept of repertoire, or the use of previous experiences and bodies of knowledge during current work. Design/methodology/approach To examine catalogers' use of repertoire, this paper employed a juxtaposition of field observations of professional library catalogers' work processes with elements of "think-aloud" protocols. Findings The researchers identified three major types of repertory knowledge that were demonstrated by catalogers: internally embedded repertory knowledge; externally embedded repertory knowledge; and seeking out new knowledge using other sources. Additionally, certain trends were noted concerning which repertory knowledge was utilized for which particular task. Determining subject and genre headings were noted for relying quite extensively on internal repertoire such as personal knowledge and institutional knowledge, along with external sources, such as personal notes and local examples. Originality/value This paper adds to a growing body of work calling for design approaches in libraries and related information settings, and breaks ground by applying the previously unexplored concept of repertoire to librarianship, specifically library cataloging, which offers a new perspective on cataloger's judgement.

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=311,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 311, 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=311)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.8, S.979-994

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=623,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 623, 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=623)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Cataloging and metadata description is one of the major competencies that a trainee cataloger must conquer. According to recent research results, library and information studies students experience difficulties understanding the theory, the terminology, and the tools necessary for cataloging. The experimental application of teaching models which derive from predominant learning theories, such as behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism, may help in detecting the difficulties of a cataloging course and in suggesting efficient solutions. This paper presents in detail three teaching models applied for a cataloging course and investigates their effectiveness, based on a survey of 126 first-year students. The survey employed the Kirkpatrick model aiming to record undergraduate students' perceptions and feelings about cataloging. The results revealed that, although a positive change in students' behavior towards cataloging has been achieved, they still do not feel very confident about the skills they have acquired. Moreover, students felt that practicing cataloging more frequently will eliminate their difficulties. Finally, they emphasized the need for face to face courses, as the survey took place in the coronavirus pandemic, during which the courses were held via distance learning.

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=716,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 716, 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=716)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Since Oliver's guide was first published in 2010, thousands of LIS students, records managers, and catalogers and other library professionals have relied on its clear, plainspoken explanation of RDA: Resource Description and Access as their first step towards becoming acquainted with the cataloging standard. Now, reflecting the changes to RDA after the completion of the 3R Project, Oliver brings her Special Report up to date. This essential primer concisely explains what RDA is, its basic features, and the main factors in its development describes RDA's relationship to the international standards and models that continue to influence its evolution provides an overview of the latest developments, focusing on the impact of the 3R Project, the results of aligning RDA with IFLA's Library Reference Model (LRM), and the outcomes of internationalization illustrates how information is organized in the post 3R Toolkit and explains how to navigate through this new structure; and discusses how RDA continues to enable improved resource discovery both in traditional and new applications, including the linked data environment.

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1131, 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=1131)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Section 1 of this article discusses the concept of bibliographical control and makes a distinction between this term, "bibliographical description," and related terms, which are often confused in the literature. It further discusses the function of bibliographical control and criticizes Patrick Wilson's distinction between "exploitative control" and "descriptive control." Section 2 presents projects for establishing bibliographic control from the Library of Alexandria to the Internet and Google, and it is found that these projects have often been dominated by a positivist dream to make all information in the world available to everybody. Section 3 discusses the theoretical problems of providing comprehensive coverage and retrieving documents represented in databases and argues that 100% coverage and retrievability is an unobtainable ideal. It is shown that bibliographical control has been taken very seriously in the field of medicine, where knowledge of the most important findings is of utmost importance. In principle, it is equally important in all other domains. The conclusion states that the alternative to a positivist dream of complete bibliographic control is a pragmatic philosophy aiming at optimizing bibliographic control supporting specific activities, perspectives, and interests.

2.8827597E-4 = product of:
  0.0040358636 = sum of:
    0.0040358636 = weight(_text_:information in 6109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040358636 = score(doc=6109,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 6109, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6109)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to review the challenges confronting cataloguing as we have known it and to consider how these challenges might be confronted and whether they may be surmounted. The main focus of this paper is on cataloguing rather than the catalogue, although it is obviously difficult to separate one from the other. First of all, what does "cataloguing" mean? For the purposes of this paper I have adopted a broad definition incorporating the following activities: - description of the resource sufficient for purposes of identification and for differentiation from other similar resources - identification and control of access points - identification and control of relationships with other resources - subject analysis of the resource - assignment of subject indexing terms - assignment of classification numbers The challenges facing cataloguing are all too well known. In no particular order, the major challenges are: - Increasing inputs - New kinds of information resource - Competition from other mediation services. - Perception that cataloguing is high cost and offers poor value for money. - Fiscal constraints - Declining workforce This is a daunting list. We have a choice, we could, to paraphrase John Lennon, "Turn off our minds, relax and float down stream", until we retire, take voluntary redundancy, or retrain as marketing consultants; or, we can choose to confront these challenges and consider what they really mean for cataloguing.

2.8827597E-4 = product of:
  0.0040358636 = sum of:
    0.0040358636 = weight(_text_:information in 907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040358636 = score(doc=907,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 907, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=907)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Content

Master Thesis im Rahmen des Universitätslehrganges Library and Information Studies MSc an der Universität Wien in Kooperation mit der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Vgl. auch: http://eprints.rclis.org/16193/1/Master%20Thesis_Schaffner%20Verena.pdf.

2.8827597E-4 = product of:
  0.0040358636 = sum of:
    0.0040358636 = weight(_text_:information in 2321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040358636 = score(doc=2321,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 2321, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2321)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to discuss and shed light on the following questions: What is an author? Is it a person who writes? Or, is it, in information, an iconic taxonomic designation (some might say a "classification") for a group of writings that are recognized by the public in some particular way? What does it mean when a search engine, or catalog, asks a user to enter the name of an author? And how does that accord with the manner in which the data have been entered in association with the names of the entities identified with the concept of authorship? Design/methodology/approach - The authors use several cases as bases of phenomenological discourse analysis, combining as best the authors can components of eidetic bracketing (a Husserlian technique for isolating noetic reduction) with Foucauldian discourse analysis. The two approaches are not sympathetic or together cogent, so the authors present them instead as alternative explanations alongside empirical evidence. In this way the authors are able to isolate components of iconic "authorship" and then subsequently engage them in discourse. Findings - An "author" is an iconic name associated with a class of works. An "author" is a role in public discourse between a set of works and the culture that consumes them. An "author" is a role in cultural sublimation, or a power broker in deabstemiation. An "author" is last, if ever, a person responsible for the intellectual content of a published work. The library catalog's attribution of "author" is at odds with the Foucauldian discursive comprehension of the role of an "author." Originality/value - One of the main assets of this paper is the combination of Foucauldian discourse analysis with phenomenological analysis for the study of the "author." The authors turned to Foucauldian discourse analysis to discover the loci of power in the interactions of the public with the named authorial entities. The authors also looked to phenomenological analysis to consider the lived experience of users who encounter the same named authorial entities. The study of the "author" in this combined way facilitated the revelation of new aspects of the role of authorship in search engines and library catalogs.

2.8827597E-4 = product of:
  0.0040358636 = sum of:
    0.0040358636 = weight(_text_:information in 4283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040358636 = score(doc=4283,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 4283, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4283)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Am 12. Dezember 2017 ist das neue Release des RDA Toolkits erschienen. Dabei gab es, aufgrund des 3R-Projekts (RDA Toolkit Restruction and Redesign Project), keine inhaltlichen Änderungen am RDA-Text. Es wurden ausschließlich die Übersetzungen in finnischer und französischer Sprache, ebenso wie die dazugehörigen Policy statements, aktualisiert. Für den deutschsprachigen Raum wurden in der Übersetzung zwei Beziehungskennzeichnungen geändert: Im Anhang I.2.2 wurde die Änderung von "Sponsor" zu "Träger" wieder rückgängig gemacht. In Anhang K.2.3 wurde "Sponsor" zu "Person als Sponsor" geändert. Außerdem wurde die Übersetzung der Anwendungsrichtlinien (D-A-CH AWR) ins Französische aktualisiert. Dies ist das vorletzte Release vor dem Rollout des neuen Toolkits. Das letzte Release im Januar/Februar 2018 wird die norwegische Übersetzung enthalten. Im Juni 2018 wird das RDA Toolkit ein Relaunch erfahren und mit einer neuen Oberfläche erscheinen. Dieser beinhaltet ein Redesign der Toolkit-Oberfläche und die inhaltliche Anpassung des Standards RDA an das Library Reference Model (IFLA LRM) sowie die künftige stärkere Ausrichtung auf die aktuellen technischen Möglichkeiten. Zunächst wird im Juni 2018 die englische Originalausgabe der RDA in der neuen Form erscheinen. Alle Übersetzungen werden in einer Übergangszeit angepasst. Hierfür wird die alte Version des RDA Toolkit für ein weiteres Jahr zur Verfügung gestellt. Der Stand Dezember 2017 der deutschen Ausgabe und die D-A-CH-Anwendungsrichtlinien bleiben bis zur Anpassung eingefroren. Nähere Information zum Rollout finden Sie unter dem folgenden Link<http://www.rdatoolkit.org/3Rproject/SR3>. [Inetbib vom 13.12.2017]

2.16207E-4 = product of:
  0.0030268978 = sum of:
    0.0030268978 = weight(_text_:information in 3777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0030268978 = score(doc=3777,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.058186423 = fieldWeight in 3777, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3777)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Content

Endlich berichten Frau Dr. Elisabeth Niggerman (DDB) (!!!) und Reiner Diedrichs (GBV) über die Auswirkungen der DFG-Studie. Eine schrittweise Internationalisierung der deutschen Regeln wird mehrheitlich gewünscht. Diese Meinung wird als Alternative vom Standardisierungsausschuss akzeptiert. Es liegen nun Vorschläge der AG-Verbund vor nämlich: - MARC21 ist obligatorisch für Verbundsysteme als Austauschformat - Verbesserungvon Datenaustausch und Fremddatennutzung - Flache Hierarchien und vollständige Information im Datensatz - Obligatorische Verwendung internationaler Codierungen - Intensive Normdatenverwendung - Einheitliche Datenstruktur und einheitliche Formatanwendung Dazu sind folgende Rahmenbedingungen notwendig: - Das Regelwerk soll die Ziele der AG-Verbund effektiv unterstützen - Keine den AACR widersprechenden Regeln - Keine Kann-Beistimmungen für strukturelle Aspekte im Regelwerk - Obligatorische Individualisierung Folgende Punkte wurden vom Standardisierungsausschuss beschlossen: - MARC21 - Deutsch als Ansetzungs- und Arbeitssprache - Vereinheitlichung und Integration der Sonderregeln in einem Werk - Übereinstimmung der Entitäten bei Titel, Personen- und Körperschaftsnamen durch Einführung international üblicher Regeln (im Hinblick auf internationale Normdaten) - Anpassung der Splitregeln bei fortlaufenden Sammelwerken (ein diesbezüglicher Entwurf wurde von der ZDB bereits ausgearbeitet) - Aktive Teilnahme am Geneseprozess der AACR3 - Gemeinsame Normdaten - gemeinsame Ansetzung von Personen bei PND und SWD - Untersuchung zur Bedeutung von Ansetzungs- und Einheitssachtitel "Uniform Title" - Insgesamt sollte eine Bewegung in Richtung - Internationalisierung - Austauschbarkeit von Daten - Kostenreduktion - Konsequente Zielverfolgung und straffe Zeitpläne Die Diskussion zu diesen Vorträgen war kaum erwähnenswert. Als Rahmenfür die Umsetzung von MARC21 und einem angepassten Regelwerk wurden nach wie vor 10 Jahre genannt. In persönlichen Gesprächen wird klar, dass mittlerweile der Umstieg auf MARC21 nicht mehr so gravierend gesehen wird, da die meisten Systeme ein Internformat verwenden und nur die Auslieferung der Daten anstelle von MAB2 und eben in MARC21 erfolgen muss. Beim Regelwerk selbst herrscht eine sehr uneinheitliche Meinung. Manche sind der Meinung, dass im Grunde doch die AACR3 kommen wird, andere sind fest davon überzeugt, dass das deutsche Regelwerk bestehen bleiben wird. Die Änderungsvorschläge der ZDB für die neuen Splitregeln sind jedenfalls eine Angleichung dieser an die AACR2.