Search results

The purpose of this paper is to consider the nature of community information (CI) and proposes a data model, based on the entity-relationship approach adopted in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), which may assist with the development of future metadata standards for CI systems.

The two main data structure standards for CI, namely the element set developed by the Alliance of Information and Referral Systems (AIRS) and the MARC21 Format for CI, are compared by means of a mapping exercise, after which an entity-relationship data model is constructed, at a conceptual level, based on the definitions of CI found in the literature.

The AIRS and MARC21 data structures converge to a fair degree, with MARC21 providing for additional detail in several areas. However, neither structure is systematically and unambiguously defined, suggesting the need for a data model. An entity-relationship data modelling approach, similar to that taken in FRBR, yielded a model that could be used as the basis for future standards development and research. It was found to effectively cover both the AIRS and MARC21 element sets.

No explicit data model exists for CI, and there has been little discussion reported about what data elements are required to support CI seeking.

The aim of this research is to define a data model of theses and dissertations that enables data exchange with CERIF‐compatible CRIS systems and data exchange according to OAI‐PMH protocol in different metadata formats (Dublin Core, EDT‐MS, etc.).

Various systems that contain metadata about theses and dissertations are analyzed. There are different standards and protocols that enable the interoperability of those systems: CERIF standard, AOI‐PMH protocol, etc. A physical data model that enables interoperability with almost all of those systems is created using the PowerDesigner CASE tool.

A set of metadata about theses and dissertations that contain all the metadata required by CERIF data model, Dublin Core format, EDT‐MS format and all the metadata prescribed by the University of Novi Sad is defined. Defined metadata can be stored in the CERIF‐compatible data model based on the MARC21 format.

CRIS‐UNS is a CRIS which has been developed at the University of Novi Sad since 2008. The system is based on the proposed data model, which enables the system's interoperability with other CERIF‐compatible CRIS systems. Also, the system based on the proposed model can become a member of NDLTD.

A system based on the proposed model increases the availability of theses and dissertations, and thus encourages the development of the knowledge‐based society.

A data model of theses and dissertations that enables interoperability with CERIF‐compatible CRIS systems is proposed. A software system based on the proposed model could become a member of NDLTD and exchange metadata with institutional repositories. The proposed model increases the availability of theses and dissertations.

This paper describes the MARCXML architecture implemented at the Library of Congress. It gives an overview of the component pieces of the architecture, including the MARCXML schema and the MARCXML toolkit, while giving a brief tutorial on their use. Several different applications of the architecture and tools are discussed to illustrate the features of the toolkit being developed thus far. Nearly any metadata format can take advantage of the features of the toolkit, and the process of the toolkit enabling a new format is discussed. Finally, this paper intends to foster new ideas with regards to the transformation of descriptive metadata, especially using XML tools. In this paper the following conventions will be used: MARC21 will refer to MARC 21 records in the ISO 2709 record structure used today; MARCXML will refer to MARC 21 records in an XML structure.

The article discusses the future of the MARC formats and outlines how future cataloguing practice and bibliographic records might look. Background and basic functionality of the MARC formats are outlined, and it is pointed out that MARC is manifest in several different formats. This is illustrated through a comparison between the MARC21 format and the Danish MARC format “danMARC2”. It is argued that present cataloguing codes and MARC formats are based primarily on the Paris principles and that “functional requirements for bibliographic records” (FRBR) would serve as a more solid and user‐oriented platform for future development of cataloguing codes and formats. Furthermore, it is argued that MARC is a library‐specific format, which results in neither exchange with library external sectors nor inclusion of other texts being facilitated. XML could serve as the technical platform for a model for future registrations, consisting of some core data and different supplements of data necessary for different sectors and purposes.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate issues of different scripts in the same record (in MARC21 and Chinese machine‐readable cataloguing (CMARC)) and Chinese internal codes (i.e. double‐byte character set) when implementing Koha. It also discusses successful efforts in promoting the adoption of Koha in Taiwan, particularly the contributions from Koha‐Taiwan.

A Koha CMARC/MARC21 testbed was set up to discuss issues of multi‐scripts and Chinese internal codes when implementing Koha, and to determine to what extent the various features of CMARC, which are not present in MARC21, such as linking fields, can be supported in Koha and what is required to implement them if they are not available.

In contrast to western characters, Chinese internal codes cause extra work, as special programming for character conversion is required when working with Koha. This situation is commonly seen in Asian countries such as China, Japan and Korea. This paper recommends implementing CMARC, MARC21 or even any other type of MARC format in Koha with strong commercial‐level support.

Koha‐Taiwan serves Koha Chinese users around the world. A successful Koha‐Taiwan could be a model around the world.

In recent years, the concept of implementing an open‐source library management system has been coming to the fore. In Taiwan, the local‐based commercial library system covers more than one quarter of the library system market in academic libraries because the company provides better tailor‐made support, mainly in scripts and multiple internal codes, than do western‐based commercial library systems. Evaluations and conclusions from this paper will be useful to countries where multi‐scripts and double‐byte character sets are issues.

This paper discusses why the MARC21‐based authority format has failed in a global setting and details the use of XML and its related technologies to achieve global name access control.

This paper provides an introduction to the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS), a MARC21 compatible XML schema for descriptive metadata. It explains the requirements that the schema targets and the special features that differentiate it from MARC, such as user‐oriented tags, regrouped data elements, linking, recursion, and accommodations for electronic resources.

Metadata standards existing today range from very complex to very simple. Relative simplicity or complexity of metadata standards depends in large part on the resources for which they were created and the depth of description that is deemed necessary to make these resources accessible. This paper reviews the differences between metadata standards and current cataloging practices, and discusses how the various metadata standards are applied in libraries. In addressing these issues, the authors introduce definitions of key concepts of metadata and cataloging standards and provide an overview of the most common metadata schemes. The discussion of current cataloging practices includes an overview of the most commonly used cataloging practices and standards, the impact of metadata on library practice and the role of librarians related to metadata. The authors will discuss the OHIOLINK Electronic Thesis and Dissertations (ETD) as an example of how Anglo‐American Cataloging Rules 2nd (AACR2) and Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC21) are used as metadata to store, describe and access this unique information resource.

The purpose of this paper is to develop an understanding of the issues surrounding the cataloguing of maps in archives and libraries. An investigation into appropriate metadata formats, such as MARC21, EAD and Dublin Core with RDF, shows how particular map data can be stored. Mathematical map elements, specifically co‐ordinates, are explored as a source of optimal retrieval.

This paper is based on both the personal experiences of map cataloguers as well as previous literature on map retrieval elements, metadata formats and map retrieval systems.

The difficulties behind map cataloguing do not lie in metadata file formats but rather in maps themselves, staff and budget. They also lie in the lack of map‐appropriate retrieval systems and the lack of co‐ordinate search capabilities.

The practical implications of this work reflect the necessity for strong map‐retrieval systems and strength of available metadata formats to store essential map data for retrieval. Future map cataloguers should secure appropriate systems for retrieval and include geographical location information, specifically numerical co‐ordinates.

This paper provides insight into current issues in map data and the file formats currently used for storing this data. It also investigates current map‐friendly systems in use by libraries and archives.

Describes the construction of the author’s Perl program, Cyril, to add vernacular Russian (Cyrillic) characters to existing MARC records. The program takes advantage of the ALA‐LC standards for Romanization to create character mappings that “de‐transliterate” specified MARC fields. The creation of Cyril raises both linguistic and technical issues, which are thoroughly examined. Concludes by considering the implications for cataloging and authority control standards, as we move to a multilingual, multi‐script bibliographic environment.