Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Gaschignard, J.-P."
  • × language_ss:"f"
  1. Gaschignard, J.-P.: UNIMARC et UNIMARC : attention aux contrefacons (1997) 0.00 
    0.00357581 = product of:
  0.0357581 = sum of:
    0.027601978 = weight(_text_:des in 921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027601978 = score(doc=921,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.079736836 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.34616345 = fieldWeight in 921, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=921)
    0.0081561245 = weight(_text_:in in 921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0081561245 = score(doc=921,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 921, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=921)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)
    Abstract
    UNIMARC is widely used in French libraries for internal cataloguing, but in versions that differ significantly from the official IFLA form, while the BNF uses its own version for exporting bibliographic information. This situation has in part been created by software suppliers who produce modified versions for small libraries but without precisely detailing the variations. Problems will inevitably arise when such libraries change software or join cataloguing networks
    Footnote
    Übers. des Titels: UNIMARC and UNIMARC: watch out for the differences
    Source
    Bulletin d'informations de l'Association des Bibliothecaires Francais. 1997, no.174, S.37
  2. Gaschignard, J.-P.: Denormalisation ou renormalisation? (1997) 0.00 
    0.003231092 = product of:
  0.032310918 = sum of:
    0.027601978 = weight(_text_:des in 904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027601978 = score(doc=904,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.079736836 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.34616345 = fieldWeight in 904, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=904)
    0.00470894 = weight(_text_:in in 904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00470894 = score(doc=904,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 904, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=904)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)
    Abstract
    Developments such as SGML have led to predictions that catalogues will become unnecessary: in future cataloguing data will be extracted from documents at the printing stage. But such scenarios require closer examination. Early experiments raise doubts about precision and reliability, while the current trend is for quality and standardisation of records rather than sheer quantity
    Footnote
    Übers. des Titels: Denormalisation or renormalisation?
    Source
    Bulletin d'informations de l'Association des Bibliothecaires Francais. 1997, no.174, S.63
  3. Gaschignard, J.-P.: Fichiers d'autorité : encore beaucoup de chemin a faire (1997) 0.00 
    0.0028272055 = product of:
  0.028272053 = sum of:
    0.024151731 = weight(_text_:des in 901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024151731 = score(doc=901,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.079736836 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.302893 = fieldWeight in 901, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=901)
    0.0041203224 = weight(_text_:in in 901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0041203224 = score(doc=901,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 901, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=901)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)
    Abstract
    Development of authority files and systems for retrieving authority records in France is ill-adapted to public library users but most problems could be resolved by greater collaboration between libraries, suppliers of bibliographic information and software producers. National Library (BNF) and Electre bibliographic records, for example, could modify their authority files and signal changes. Research could be facilitated by addition of supplementary simplified indexing allowing simultaneous access. Graphic tables of indexing structure would allow users to master indexing languages, and this technique couls also be used for creating author and author-title authority files. Such improvements would depend on establishing technical definitions and standards for software
    Footnote
    Übers. des Titels: Authority files: still a long way to go
    Source
    Bulletin d'informations de l'Association des Bibliothecaires Francais. 1997, no.174, S.52-56