Stitched Gray T Jersey J College Legend Light Alternate Iv 16 Buckeyes Barrett Limited

[This local archive copy is from the official and canonical URL, http://www.acctbief.org/avenir/marcsgml.htm#par1; please refer to the canonical source document if possible.]

THE FUTURE OF COMMUNICATION FORMATS

Gamecocks Player College Red Fighting Stitched Jersey Fashion Lattimore 21 Marcus

MARC Data in an SGML Structure

Stitched Gray T Jersey J College Legend Light Alternate Iv 16 Buckeyes Barrett

BY
Sally H. McCallum
Chief, Network Development and MARC Standards Office
Stitched Gray T Jersey J College Legend Light Alternate Iv 16 Buckeyes Barrett Stitched Gray T Jersey J College Legend Light Alternate Iv 16 Buckeyes Barrett
Library of Congress, Washington DC, 20540 USA
smcc@loc.gov

October 9th 1996

Body (Colors): 100% Pro-Brite nylon Body (White): 100% Pro-Brite polyester Side Panels/Collar/Cuffs: 100% lycratalic spandex dazzle Engineered Stripe Collar and Cuffs (specific to team): 100% polyester Embroidered number on the chest, back and sleeves Individual twill or dazzle letters for the player name College Equipment patch sewn on the bottom of the front collar or fabric insert College Equipment jock tag with numeric sizing is applied to the lower left bottom of the jersey logo Embroidered on each sleeve Decorated in the team colors


1. Consumption reaches $39.99 and above. We offer free worldwide shipping .If it's less than $39.99, an additional $10 shipping charge is required.

2. After successful order, all orders will be shipped within 48 hours.Time of shipment varies from country to country and mode of shipment. If you choose DHL/UPS/FedEx express delivery, the time of shipment is 4-7 days.

3. If you order more than 50 pieces, please contact us via support@fakeworldmail.com, we will ofer you a good price.

 4. If you have any questions, please browse the "【FAQ】" page. If FAQ is still unable to answer your questions, please send an e-mail directly to support@fakeworldmail.com

 5. We usually reply to all emails within 24 hours, and our response time may be longer during weekends and Chinese holidays.




Stitched Gray T Jersey J College Legend Light Alternate Iv 16 Buckeyes Barrett Limited

Fashion 's Stitched White Diamondbacks Baseball Jersey pink Adam Women 10 Jones


Why Create a MARC Data DTD?

Stitched Gray T Jersey J College Legend Light Alternate Iv 16 Buckeyes Barrett

Development of the MARC Data DTD


Plans
Stitched Gray T Jersey J College Legend Light Alternate Iv 16 Buckeyes Barrett

Stitched Gray T Jersey J College Legend Light Alternate Iv 16 Buckeyes Barrett

Stitched Gray T Jersey J College Legend Light Alternate Iv 16 Buckeyes Barrett
Conclusion

It is difficult to know where to begin as the SGML environment is so multifaceted. Fortunately, the specific topic of this paper is the SGML DTD that has been developed for the MARC record. The following will first give brief information about the characteristics of SGML, comparing and contrasting the SGML data structure and markup with the MARC structure and markup, and then discuss why the DTD is being developed, indicate some of our design choices, and finally give the plans for this activity.

Pirates Authentic Collection Camo Clemente 21 Baseball Stitched Flexbase Jersey Roberto

MARC and SGML

Vocabulary

Before describing some general characteristics of MARC and SGML, clarification of the vocabulary used is needed. SGML employs a very different vocabulary from MARC to describe its parts and products, although most concepts are roughly comparable. Since many readers will be more familiar with the MARC nomenclature for describing machine-readable bibliographic records, the following will relate the vocabularies but then primarily use the MARC terms in order to simplify the presentation.

SGML is actually only a generalized data structure, formally called ISO 8879, Stitched Gray T Jersey J College Legend Light Alternate Iv 16 Buckeyes Barrett Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML). The comparable structure standard for MARC is ISO 2709, Format for Information Exchange (INEX). Neither SGML nor INEX can be used in an implementation until tags and rules are established in conformance with these ISO structure standards. A tag set for the INEX structure is called a "format", whereas one under the SGML structure is called a "document type definition" or "DTD". So formats and DTDs are comparable concepts. Finally, if a bibliographic description is marked up using tags specified in a format or a DTD, the result is called a "record" in the INEX environment and a "document instance" in the SGML environment.

The obvious question is, then, what is MARC? MARC actually refers to a certain subset of formats that have the INEX structure -- for example Can/MARC, InterMARC, CCF, and USMARC are all MARC formats that have the INEX structure. They all essentially use the same options allowed by INEX and all are intended to encode bibliographic data.

In the following the more specific terminology "MARC", "MARC format" and "MARC record" is used, rather than the strictly correct "INEX", "INEX format" and "INEX record". The comparable SGML concepts will be called "SGML", "SGML DTD", and "SGML record". This is a slight departure from orthodox SGML vocabulary. For this paper the SGML "document instance" concept will be split into "SGML record", if the content is bibliographic, and "SGML document", if it is the full text of an item. Marked up bibliographic data will always be called a "record". Although different MARC formats have different tags, they all have a commonality in the data they encode. That bibliographic content of records will be referred to by various commonly used terms: cataloging data, metadata, bibliographic data, or MARC data, regardless of whether it is marked up using MARC format tagging or SGML DTD tagging. The terms "tagging" and "marking up" will be used interchangeably.

Characteristics of SGML and MARC

ISO 2709 or MARC takes a data dictionary approach to markup. The characteristics of the MARC data structure focus on allowing detailed markup of variable length (but not extremely long) data elements to facilitate complex indexing and sorting requirements. It allows efficient access to the data in order to manipulate and use various subset combinations and to index selected parts. The field tags, indicators, subfields, and particularly the directory structure specified in ISO 2709 support these requirements.

The data structure specified in ISO 8879 or SGML is targeted at encoding documents that may be any length, but will usually be very long. The content of these documents must maintain their linear order but hierarchies inherent in the data also need to be preserved. The method for establishing tags and attributes in SGML is supportive of these requirements. The absence of directory access to the data, as found in MARC, is suitable for the often great (yet variable) length of the data segments. The emphasis in tagging is on structural and presentational characteristics rather than retrieval or sorting characteristics.

As was mentioned above, MARC and SGML are both formal standards that specify data structures. The formats based on those structures, that specify the tags used for the data and the semantics for using them, must be established by the user communities. For MARC, there is strong industry standardization on an implementation schema for cataloging and related data, the various specific MARC formats -- Can/MARC, USMARC, UNIMARC, CCF, etc.

SGML is newer than MARC and is still in a period of proliferation of implementations for textual data. Two leading tagging schemes are ISO 12083, Electronic Manuscript Preparation and Markup and TEI, the Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Interchange. ISO 12083 was targeted for modern publications, with emphasis on hierarchical structures, while the TEI was developed initially for conversion of older text into electronic form. Older documents often offer an array of structural characteristics that are not compatible with a hierarchical tagging schema.

There are a number of other SGML document markups that were developed for special purposes, such as CALS (Computeraided Acquisition and Logistics Support Program), a markup designed for manuals and other technical documentation; HTML (Hypertext Markup Language), a very simple markup designed for use in marking documents for World Wide Web (WWW) servers; and MAJOUR, a markup targeted for journal articles. Individual publishers that have adopted SGML structures for publications have tended to define their own proprietary SGML tagging schemes. There are thus many, many unique SGML-based markups due to differences in publications and viewpoints. The programming language nature of the basic standard and development of markup-creation tools has encouraged experimentation and invention.

Pirates Authentic Collection Camo Clemente 21 Baseball Stitched Flexbase Jersey Roberto Football Tide Crimson Red National Championship Jersey Saban Patch Stitched 1 2016 College Nick Playoff

Why Create a MARC Data DTD?

Assumptions

I want to state three assumptions as a basis for the following discussion. The assumptions indicate continuing need for catalogs of bibliographic records, even though new, non-catalog uses for cataloging data may have given rise to this MARC Data DTD effort.

First, in the future there will continue to be both electronic publications and items in other media, including an enormous number of print materials.

I say this because when working in the SGML environment, it is easy to begin to focus on electronic items as if everything is or will soon be available to end users electronically. That is not the case, although the number of important (and unimportant) electronic documents certainly will increase. SGML markup is used to create documents to be disseminated electronically as well as those that will be distributed only in print form.

The second assumption is that in the future catalogs that bring together data about items, i.e., cataloging or metadata, will continue to be essential. These catalogs will continue to contain metadata about items in all media, including print and electronic.

This point is made because, when working with SGML, the distinction between the item itself and metadata about the item becomes blurred. It is easy to begin to assume that if parts of an electronic item, such as the title, are tagged, or if metadata is tagged and appended to an item, then there is no need to also pull that information into a catalog. That is not the case. The concept of the catalog of only metadata in which all items in all media are described will continue to be essential for information access.

The third assumption is that cataloging data will continue to consist of 1) information directly from the item, 2) subject information about the item that is supplied through document analysis, and 3) information that has been normalized for amalgamation and subsequent retrieval with cataloging data from the past and the future.

While derivation of cataloging data automatically from the piece is an ideal that may some day be possible, the requirements for a catalog are still such that there are human contributions necessary to the process.

Stitched Gray T Jersey J College Legend Light Alternate Iv 16 Buckeyes Barrett Proposed Uses of a MARC Data DTD

There are increasing numbers of electronic bibliographic items being produced. Thus one use of a MARC Data DTD is for enclosing the MARC record with the electronic document. If MARC data had a standard representation in SGML, then for electronic documents the MARC data could be sent along with the document and a standard utility could process the data into a MARC structure for addition to the catalog.

For electronic documents, there is also a potential for full text retrieval but experience has shown that such retrieval is very inexact. There is interest in making MARC data, with its controlled access points, available with the full text to the retrieval programs that process the documents. The record could then help refine full text searching and reduce false hits. This is of special interest to the Library of Congress in its digital library program.

It could be especially valuable to include the catalog record with electronic documents that are digital images. The MARC data that accompanies the image could be converted and derived into a MARC-based catalog and also reside in the SGML-based file for electronic documents.

Experiments are also taking place using SGML as the format for bibliographic citation files. While most of this work thus far has been for the construction of bibliographies, which are static bibliographic files, experimentation is also taking place with dynamic catalog files also, especially in instances where the application deals only or mostly with electronic documents. The Cheshire Project at Berkeley is such an experiment.

Stitched Eagles Super 62 Lii Men's Green Kelce Jersey Bowl Football Limited Jason Rush

Salute Stitched Limited camo Panthers Rashaan 2017 Olive 28 Football Jersey Service To Gaulden Men's

Women's Salute Service Liii Rams 17 Bound Olive Woods Robert To Stitched Super Football Limited Jersey Bowl 2017

Stitched Eagles Super 62 Lii Men's Green Kelce Jersey Bowl Football Limited Jason Rush Army Hoodie Knights Black Rewind Club

Plans

The working group also agreed upon several steps that will be necessary for the DTD to really become useful for experimental work, and have the desired standardizing impact. These are to be worked out during the alpha and beta test phases of the DTD.

Examples

Stitched Gray T Jersey J College Legend Light Alternate Iv 16 Buckeyes Barrett Stitched Gray T Jersey J College Legend Light Alternate Iv 16 Buckeyes Barrett The following title area fragments from the USMARC format and the MARC Data DTD indicate the differences in specification and approach and the similarity in outcome of the two document structures.

MARC Format fragment, the title field:

 245   TITLE STATEMENT  (NR)
	Indicators
        First Title added entry
              0 No title added entry
	      1 Title added entry
        Second  Nonfiling characters
              0-9 Number of nonfiling characters present
        Subfield Codes
             $a Title  (NR)
             $b Remainder of title  (NR)
             $c Remainder of title page transcription/statement of responsibility
                (NR)

MARC Data DTD fragment:









Marked up fragment of a record:

MARC:

[245] 10$aSGML :$ban author's guide to the standard generalized markup language/$cMartin Bryan
Golden Premier Stitched No White Fans Jersey Bears College 1

SGML:

SGML : an author's guide to the standard generalized markup language / Martin Bryan

Conclusion

This work is an interesting development for bibliographic control, driven by the revolution taking place in the accessibility of electronic documents. Over the next year we expect to see several experiments started and await the results to see how the DTD will need to evolve. The digital library "movement" itself is in its infancy and may go in any number of directions, but the cataloging tools built by librarians, who have been maintaining electronic catalogs for over 20 years, will still be a cornerstone of the new mixed environment. Our formats and cataloging data will be a major contribution to the digital environment.

References:

Larson, Ray, et al. Cheshire II: "Designing a Next-GEneration Online Catalog." Journal of the American Society for Information Science, v.47, no.7, p.555-567.

Cole, Timothy W. and Kazmer, Michelle M. "SGML as a Component of the Digital Library." Stitched Gray T Jersey J College Legend Light Alternate Iv 16 Buckeyes Barrett Library Hi-Tech, v.13, no.4, p.75-90.

Stitched Gray T Jersey J College Legend Light Alternate Iv 16 Buckeyes Barrett