Search (26 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  1. Eden, B.L.: Metadata and librarianship : will MARC survive? (2004) 0.00 
    0.0026296957 = product of:
  0.039445434 = sum of:
    0.039445434 = sum of:
      0.011962548 = weight(_text_:information in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.011962548 = score(doc=4750,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
      0.027482886 = weight(_text_:22 in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027482886 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    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
  2. Carvalho, J.R. de; Cordeiro, M.I.; Lopes, A.; Vieira, M.: Meta-information about MARC : an XML framework for validation, explanation and help systems (2004) 0.00 
    0.0024833512 = product of:
  0.037250265 = sum of:
    0.037250265 = sum of:
      0.009767379 = weight(_text_:information in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009767379 = score(doc=2848,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
      0.027482886 = weight(_text_:22 in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027482886 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    This article proposes a schema for meta-information about MARC that can express at a fairly comprehensive level the syntactic and semantic aspects of MARC formats in XML, including not only rules but also all texts and examples that are conveyed by MARC documentation. It can be thought of as an XML version of the MARC or UNIMARC manuals, for both machine and human usage. The article explains how such a schema can be the central piece of a more complete framework, to be used in conjunction with "slim" record formats, providing a rich environment for the automated processing of bibliographic data.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.131-137
  3. Jimenez, V.O.R.: Nuevas perspectivas para la catalogacion : metadatos ver MARC (1999) 0.00 
    0.0022209529 = product of:
  0.03331429 = sum of:
    0.03331429 = product of:
      0.06662858 = sum of:
        0.06662858 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06662858 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 5743, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5743)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Date
    30. 3.2002 19:45:22
    Source
    Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.2, S.198-219
  4. MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications (2004) 0.00 
    0.0020939345 = product of:
  0.031409014 = sum of:
    0.031409014 = product of:
      0.06281803 = sum of:
        0.06281803 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06281803 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1
  5. Kurth, M.; Ruddy, D.; Rupp, N.: Repurposing MARC metadata : using digital project experience to develop a metadata management design (2004) 0.00 
    0.0019651123 = product of:
  0.029476684 = sum of:
    0.029476684 = sum of:
      0.005919926 = weight(_text_:information in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005919926 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4748, 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=4748)
      0.023556758 = weight(_text_:22 in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023556758 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4748, 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=4748)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Metadata and information technology staff in libraries that are building digital collections typically extract and manipulate MARC metadata sets to provide access to digital content via non-MARC schemes. Metadata processing in these libraries involves defining the relationships between metadata schemes, moving metadata between schemes, and coordinating the intellectual activity and physical resources required to create and manipulate metadata. Actively managing the non-MARC metadata resources used to build digital collections is something most of these libraries have only begun to do. This article proposes strategies for managing MARC metadata repurposing efforts as the first step in a coordinated approach to library metadata management. Guided by lessons learned from Cornell University library mapping and transformation activities, the authors apply the literature of data resource management to library metadata management and propose a model for managing MARC metadata repurposing processes through the implementation of a metadata management design.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.144-152
  6. MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications (2004) 0.00 
    0.0018321925 = product of:
  0.027482886 = sum of:
    0.027482886 = product of:
      0.05496577 = sum of:
        0.05496577 = weight(_text_:22 in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05496577 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7196, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7196)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1
  7. MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications part 2 (2004) 0.00 
    0.0018321925 = product of:
  0.027482886 = sum of:
    0.027482886 = product of:
      0.05496577 = sum of:
        0.05496577 = weight(_text_:22 in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05496577 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2841, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2841)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2
  8. Caplan, P.; Guenther, R.: Metadata for Internet resources : the Dublin Core Metadata Elements Set and its mapping to USMARC (1996) 0.00 
    0.0014806351 = product of:
  0.022209525 = sum of:
    0.022209525 = product of:
      0.04441905 = sum of:
        0.04441905 = weight(_text_:22 in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04441905 = score(doc=2408,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2408, 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=2408)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Date
    13. 1.2007 18:31:22
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.43-58
  9. Tennant, R.: ¬A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty-first century (2004) 0.00 
    0.0014806351 = product of:
  0.022209525 = sum of:
    0.022209525 = product of:
      0.04441905 = sum of:
        0.04441905 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04441905 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Date
    9.12.2005 19:22:38
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.175-181
  10. Becker, H.-J.; Hengel, C.; Neuroth, H.; Weiß, B.; Wessel, C.: ¬Die Virtuelle Fachbibliothek als Schnittstelle für eine fachübergreifende Suche in den einzelnen Virtuellen Fachbibliotheken : Definition eines Metadaten-Kernsets (VLib Application Profile) (2002) 0.00 
    0.001284139 = product of:
  0.019262085 = sum of:
    0.019262085 = weight(_text_:und in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019262085 = score(doc=2856,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.29991096 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Der folgende Beitrag beschäftigt sich nicht mit einer konkreten Virtuellen Fachbibliothek, sondern mit dem übergreifenden Themenkomplex "Metadaten" und der Fragestellung, wie Metadaten für eine fachübergreifende Suche über alle Virtuellen Fachbibliotheken eingesetzt werden können. Im Rahmen des Aufbaus der Virtuellen Fachbibliotheken hat die Projektkoordinierung Unterarbeitsgruppen zur Lösung spezifischer Fragestellungen ins Leben gerufen. Der Arbeitsbereich "Metadaten" ist von dem von der DFG geförderten Projekt META-LIB (Metadaten-Initiative deutscher Bibliotheken) mit den Teilprojekten an Der Deutschen Bibliothek und der SUB Göttingen übernommen worden. META-LIB erhielt die Aufgabe, "Empfehlungen zur Definition eines Metadaten-Core-Sets für die verteilte Suche über die Virtuellen Fachbibliotheken" zu entwickeln. Im folgenden werden die Empfehlungen vorgestellt. Sie basieren auf den Ergebnissen und der Auswertung von Antworteng eines Internet-Fragebogens, in dem die Datenelemente erfragt wurden, die in den einzelnen Virtuellen Fachbibliotheken zur Erschließung verwendet bzw. benötigt werden. Für die Formulierung der Empfehlungen und zur Abstimmung sind zwei MetadatenWorkshops (am 16. Mai 2001 in der SUB Göttingen und am 9./10. August 2001 in der Deutschen Bibliothek Frankfurt am Main) durchgeführt worden, deren Ergebnisse und Diskussionen als Grundlage dienen.
  11. Proffitt, M.: Pulling it all together : use of METS in RLG cultural materials service (2004) 0.00 
    0.0010469672 = product of:
  0.015704507 = sum of:
    0.015704507 = product of:
      0.031409014 = sum of:
        0.031409014 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031409014 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.65-68
  12. McCallum, S.H.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) (2004) 0.00 
    0.0010469672 = product of:
  0.015704507 = sum of:
    0.015704507 = product of:
      0.031409014 = sum of:
        0.031409014 = weight(_text_:22 in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031409014 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.82-88
  13. Cundiff, M.V.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) (2004) 0.00 
    0.0010469672 = product of:
  0.015704507 = sum of:
    0.015704507 = product of:
      0.031409014 = sum of:
        0.031409014 = weight(_text_:22 in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031409014 = score(doc=2834,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2834, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2834)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.52-64
  14. El-Sherbini, M.: Metadata and the future of cataloging (2001) 0.00 
    0.0010469672 = product of:
  0.015704507 = sum of:
    0.015704507 = product of:
      0.031409014 = sum of:
        0.031409014 = weight(_text_:22 in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031409014 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Date
    23. 1.2007 11:22:30
  15. Guenther, R.S.: Using the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) for resource description : guidelines and applications (2004) 0.00 
    9.1609627E-4 = product of:
  0.013741443 = sum of:
    0.013741443 = product of:
      0.027482886 = sum of:
        0.027482886 = weight(_text_:22 in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027482886 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.89-98
  16. Keith, C.: Using XSLT to manipulate MARC metadata (2004) 0.00 
    7.852253E-4 = product of:
  0.011778379 = sum of:
    0.011778379 = product of:
      0.023556758 = sum of:
        0.023556758 = weight(_text_:22 in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023556758 = score(doc=4747,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4747, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4747)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.122-130
  17. Yee, R.; Beaubien, R.: ¬A preliminary crosswalk from METS to IMS content packaging (2004) 0.00 
    7.852253E-4 = product of:
  0.011778379 = sum of:
    0.011778379 = product of:
      0.023556758 = sum of:
        0.023556758 = weight(_text_:22 in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023556758 = score(doc=4752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4752, 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=4752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.69-81
  18. Wisser, K.M.; O'Brien Roper, J.: Maximizing metadata : exploring the EAD-MARC relationship (2003) 0.00 
    6.5435446E-4 = product of:
  0.009815317 = sum of:
    0.009815317 = product of:
      0.019630633 = sum of:
        0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019630633 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 154, 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=154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  19. Suominen, O.; Hyvönen, N.: From MARC silos to Linked Data silos? (2017) 0.00 
    6.2909705E-4 = product of:
  0.009436456 = sum of:
    0.009436456 = weight(_text_:und in 3732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009436456 = score(doc=3732,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 3732, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3732)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Seit einiger Zeit stellen Bibliotheken ihre bibliografischen Metadadaten verstärkt offen in Form von Linked Data zur Verfügung. Dabei kommen jedoch ganz unterschiedliche Modelle für die Strukturierung der bibliografischen Daten zur Anwendung. Manche Bibliotheken verwenden ein auf FRBR basierendes Modell mit mehreren Schichten von Entitäten, während andere flache, am Datensatz orientierte Modelle nutzen. Der Wildwuchs bei den Datenmodellen erschwert die Nachnutzung der bibliografischen Daten. Im Ergebnis haben die Bibliotheken die früheren MARC-Silos nur mit zueinander inkompatiblen Linked-Data-Silos vertauscht. Deshalb ist es häufig schwierig, Datensets miteinander zu kombinieren und nachzunutzen. Kleinere Unterschiede in der Datenmodellierung lassen sich zwar durch Schema Mappings in den Griff bekommen, doch erscheint es fraglich, ob die Interoperabilität insgesamt zugenommen hat. Der Beitrag stellt die Ergebnisse einer Studie zu verschiedenen veröffentlichten Sets von bibliografischen Daten vor. Dabei werden auch die unterschiedlichen Modelle betrachtet, um bibliografische Daten als RDF darzustellen, sowie Werkzeuge zur Erzeugung von entsprechenden Daten aus dem MARC-Format. Abschließend wird der von der Finnischen Nationalbibliothek verfolgte Ansatz behandelt.
  20. Lupovici, C.: ¬L'¬information secondaire du document primaire : format MARC ou SGML? (1997) 0.00 
    3.987516E-4 = product of:
  0.005981274 = sum of:
    0.005981274 = product of:
      0.011962548 = sum of:
        0.011962548 = weight(_text_:information in 892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011962548 = score(doc=892,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 892, 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=892)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Secondary information, e.g. MARC based bibliographic records, comprises structured data for identifying, tagging, retrieving and management of primary documents. SGML, the standard format for coding content and structure of primary documents, was introduced in 1986 as a publishing tool but is now being applied to bibliographic records. SGML now comprises standard definitions (DTD) for books, serials, articles and mathematical formulae. A simplified version (HTML) is used for Web pages. Pilot projects to develop SGML as a standard for bibliographic exchange include the Dublin Core, listing 13 descriptive elements for Internet documents; the French GRISELI programme using SGML for exchanging grey literature and US experiments on reformatting USMARC for use with SGML-based records
    Footnote
    Übers. des Titels: Secondary information on primary documents: MARC or SGML format?

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 22
  • d 2
  • f 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 22
  • s 3
  • el 2
  • n 1
  • More… Less…

Themes