DACS Revision
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
From UKMARC to MARC 21: a Guide to the Differences
Changing the record A concise guide to the differences between the UKMARC and MARC 21 bibliographic formats By R.W. Hill Bibliographic research officer, British Library The British Library Bibliographic Policy & Liaison National Bibliographic Service Boston Spa, Wetherby West Yorkshire LS23 7BQ ©The British Library 2002 1 Contents Introduction 4 1 MARC 21 and UKMARC: an overview 1.1 A side-by-side comparison 5 1.2 MARC standards 6 1.3 Related formats 6 1.4 A note on the background 6 2 Structure and components of the MARC record 2.1 Fields 7 2.2 Indicators 7 2.3 Subfields 7 2.4 Control subfields 8 2.5 Levels 8 2.6 Character set 8 2.7 Record leader and directory 8 A note on the method of comparison 10 3 Name headings 3.1 Personal name headings 11 3.2 Corporate name headings 12 3.3 Meeting/conference name headings 12 4 Title information 4.1 Uniform titles 13 4.2 Collective titles 14 4.3 Title and statement of responsibility 14 4.4 Part titles 14 4.5 Key titles 16 4.6 Variant and related titles 16 5 Edition and imprint 5.1 Edition statement 17 5.2 Cartographic mathematical data 17 5.3 Computer file characteristics 17 5.4 Publication, distribution and manufacture 17 5.5 Projected publication date 18 6 Physical description and related details 6.1 Physical description 19 6.2 Price and availability 19 6.3 Sequential designation of serials 19 6.4 Other descriptive fields 19 7 Series statements 7.1 Series statements in title added entry form 20 7.2 Series statements not in title added entry form 20 8 Notes 8.1 Principles for defining notes 21 8.2 -
A Many-Storied Place
A Many-storied Place Historic Resource Study Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas Theodore Catton Principal Investigator Midwest Region National Park Service Omaha, Nebraska 2017 A Many-Storied Place Historic Resource Study Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas Theodore Catton Principal Investigator 2017 Recommended: {){ Superintendent, Arkansas Post AihV'j Concurred: Associate Regional Director, Cultural Resources, Midwest Region Date Approved: Date Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set. Proverbs 22:28 Words spoken by Regional Director Elbert Cox Arkansas Post National Memorial dedication June 23, 1964 Table of Contents List of Figures vii Introduction 1 1 – Geography and the River 4 2 – The Site in Antiquity and Quapaw Ethnogenesis 38 3 – A French and Spanish Outpost in Colonial America 72 4 – Osotouy and the Changing Native World 115 5 – Arkansas Post from the Louisiana Purchase to the Trail of Tears 141 6 – The River Port from Arkansas Statehood to the Civil War 179 7 – The Village and Environs from Reconstruction to Recent Times 209 Conclusion 237 Appendices 241 1 – Cultural Resource Base Map: Eight exhibits from the Memorial Unit CLR (a) Pre-1673 / Pre-Contact Period Contributing Features (b) 1673-1803 / Colonial and Revolutionary Period Contributing Features (c) 1804-1855 / Settlement and Early Statehood Period Contributing Features (d) 1856-1865 / Civil War Period Contributing Features (e) 1866-1928 / Late 19th and Early 20th Century Period Contributing Features (f) 1929-1963 / Early 20th Century Period -
Richard G. Hewlett and Jack M. Holl. Atoms
ATOMS PEACE WAR Eisenhower and the Atomic Energy Commission Richard G. Hewlett and lack M. Roll With a Foreword by Richard S. Kirkendall and an Essay on Sources by Roger M. Anders University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London Published 1989 by the University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England Prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission; work made for hire. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hewlett, Richard G. Atoms for peace and war, 1953-1961. (California studies in the history of science) Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Nuclear energy—United States—History. 2. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission—History. 3. Eisenhower, Dwight D. (Dwight David), 1890-1969. 4. United States—Politics and government-1953-1961. I. Holl, Jack M. II. Title. III. Series. QC792. 7. H48 1989 333.79'24'0973 88-29578 ISBN 0-520-06018-0 (alk. paper) Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 CONTENTS List of Illustrations vii List of Figures and Tables ix Foreword by Richard S. Kirkendall xi Preface xix Acknowledgements xxvii 1. A Secret Mission 1 2. The Eisenhower Imprint 17 3. The President and the Bomb 34 4. The Oppenheimer Case 73 5. The Political Arena 113 6. Nuclear Weapons: A New Reality 144 7. Nuclear Power for the Marketplace 183 8. Atoms for Peace: Building American Policy 209 9. Pursuit of the Peaceful Atom 238 10. The Seeds of Anxiety 271 11. Safeguards, EURATOM, and the International Agency 305 12. -
Choice of Foreign Names As a Strategy for Identity Management
Intercultural Communication Studies XVII: 2 2008 Cheang Choice of Foreign Names as a Strategy for Identity Management Justina Cheang, University of Macau Regardless of the fact that Macau’s dominating population are Chinese, English names, or to be more exact, foreign names, are favored and widely used, be it in the businesses, the government, or education institutions. Though Chinese (Cantonese) is spoken by most in the city, local Chinese people’s favor in the use of English/foreign names, whether they are students, civil servants, or working in the business, does reflect their taste and their desired image to be displayed to others. Interviews are conducted showing that people’s choice of English/foreign names are somehow a strategy for identity management – certain names are chosen to show a pleasant personality, or other desirable qualities that they wanted to project to others. It is interesting to note that, other than English names, people would choose Portuguese names, Japanese names, names of things (non-proper names), or even people’s own creation for use. A Chinese saying: “One does not fear if he/she has a bad fate; what one fears most is to be given a bad name.” Rather than a Chinese saying, this should also be a universal consideration when most parents all over the world are finding names for their children. Most people get their names when they are born, and very often they themselves are not involved in the decision-making. What if we get a chance to decide on our own name? To get a name by oneself is probably a very unique trend in Asia, and especially, the Chinese communities. -
Reference Guides for Registering Students with Non English Names
Getting It Right Reference Guides for Registering Students With Non-English Names Jason Greenberg Motamedi, Ph.D. Zafreen Jaffery, Ed.D. Allyson Hagen Education Northwest June 2016 U.S. Department of Education John B. King Jr., Secretary Institute of Education Sciences Ruth Neild, Deputy Director for Policy and Research Delegated Duties of the Director National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance Joy Lesnick, Acting Commissioner Amy Johnson, Action Editor OK-Choon Park, Project Officer REL 2016-158 The National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE) conducts unbiased large-scale evaluations of education programs and practices supported by federal funds; provides research-based technical assistance to educators and policymakers; and supports the synthesis and the widespread dissemination of the results of research and evaluation throughout the United States. JUNE 2016 This project has been funded at least in part with federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education under contract number ED‐IES‐12‐C‐0003. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. REL Northwest, operated by Education Northwest, partners with practitioners and policymakers to strengthen data and research use. As one of 10 federally funded regional educational laboratories, we conduct research studies, provide training and technical assistance, and disseminate information. Our work focuses on regional challenges such as turning around low-performing schools, improving college and career readiness, and promoting equitable and excellent outcomes for all students. -
Site and Hydrographic Survey Report East Tarbert Bay, Isle of Gigha
Site and Hydrographic Survey Report East Tarbert Bay, Isle of Gigha August 2017 Written By: Status: Final Date: 17th Aug 2017 The Scottish Salmon Company 8 Melville Crescent Edinburgh EH3 7JA Contents ____________________________________________________________ 1 Introduction 3 2 Site description 3 3 Survey programme 4 3.1 Current meter set up 4 3.2 Weather station set up 4 3.3 Current meter configuration file 4 3.4 Mooring system 5 4 Bathymetry and site survey 5 5 Data processing 6 5.1 RDCP data 6 5.2 Magnetic heading corrections 7 5.3 Hydrographic survey results 7 5.4 Summary statistics 7 5.5 Meterological results 8 6 Discussion 8 Annex HG7 analysis summaries and Contour Signal Strength 10-14 2 The Scottish Salmon Company 2017 1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the methods used to acquire current speed and direction data and spot depths at a site in the Sound of Gigha and presents the outcomes of the survey exercise. This deployment was carried out using an Aanderaa RDCP600 mounted in a weighted seabed frame. Analyses were carried out in accordance with SEPA guidelines ( Regulation and monitoring of marine cage fish farming in Scotland - a procedures manual. Attachment VIII Site and Hydrographic Survey Requirements. Version 2.7, 31st October 2008). 2 SITE DESCRIPTION The hydrographic survey site is located on the east coast of the Isle of Gigha, Argyll, in the vicinity of the existing Scottish Salmon Company (SSC) East Tarbert Bay farm site. There were 12 cages on-site at the time of survey. In addition, the existing SSC Druimyeon Bay cage site lies around 1.2km to the south of the deployment position. -
NIH Spanish Style Guide
NIH Spanish Style Guide Table of Contents 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 4 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Target Audiences ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Names ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4 2.1. NIH, Institutes, and Centers ................................................................................................................................. 4 2.2. Names of Countries, States, and Cities ............................................................................................................... 7 2.3. Addresses............................................................................................................................................................ 8 2.4. Names of Entities and Institutions ....................................................................................................................... 8 2.5. Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................. -
Descriptive Metadata Guidelines for RLG Cultural Materials I Many Thanks Also to These Individuals Who Reviewed the Final Draft of the Document
������������������������������� �������������������������� �������� ����������������������������������� ��������������������������������� ��������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� � ���������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� �� ���������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� �������������������� ������������������� ���������������������������� ��� ���������������������������������������� ����������� ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many thanks to the members of the RLG Cultural Materials Alliance—Description Advisory Group for their participation in developing these guidelines: Ardie Bausenbach Library of Congress Karim Boughida Getty Research Institute Terry Catapano Columbia University Mary W. Elings Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Michael Fox Minnesota Historical Society Richard Rinehart Berkeley Art Museum & Pacific Film Archive University of California, Berkeley Elizabeth Shaw Aziza Technology Associates, LLC Neil Thomson Natural History Museum (UK) Layna White San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Günter Waibel RLG staff liaison Thanks also to RLG staff: Joan Aliprand Arnold Arcolio Ricky Erway Fae Hamilton Descriptive Metadata Guidelines for RLG Cultural Materials i Many -
Sound of Gigha Proposed Special Protection Area (Pspa) NO
Sound of Gigha Proposed Special Protection Area (pSPA) NO. UK9020318 SPA Site Selection Document: Summary of the scientific case for site selection Document version control Version and Amendments made and author Issued to date and date Version 1 Formal advice submitted to Marine Scotland on Marine draft SPA. Nigel Buxton & Greg Mudge. Scotland 10/07/14 Version 2 Updated to reflect change in site status from draft Marine to proposed and addition of SPA reference Scotland number in preparation for possible formal 30/06/15 consultation. Shona Glen, Tim Walsh & Emma Philip Version 3 Creation of new site selection document. Emma Susie Whiting Philip 17/05/16 Version 4 Document updated to address requirements of Greg revised format agreed by Marine Scotland. Mudge Kate Thompson & Emma Philip 17/06/16 Version 5 Quality assured Emma Greg Mudge Philip 17/6/16 Version 6 Final draft for approval Andrew Emma Philip Bachell 22/06/16 Version 7 Final version for submission to Marine Scotland Marine Scotland, 24/06/16 Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 2. Site summary ........................................................................................................ 2 3. Bird survey information ....................................................................................... 5 4. Assessment against the UK SPA Selection Guidelines .................................... 6 5. Site status and boundary ................................................................................. -
DACS (Describing Archives: a Content Standard)
SAA-Approved Standard DE S CRI DESCRIBING B ARCHIVES ING ARCHIVE A CONTENT STANDARD SECOND EDITION DESCRIBING Revised and updated, Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS) facilitates S : consistent, appropriate, and self-explanatory description of archival materials and A CON creators of archival materials. This new edition reflects the growing convergence among archival, museum, and library standards; aligns DACS with the descriptive ARCHIVES standards developed and supported by the International Council on Archives; and TE A CONTENT STANDARD provides guidance on the creation of archival authority records. DACS can be applied N to all types of material at all levels of description, and the rules are designed for use by T S SECOND EDITION any type of descriptive output, including MARC 21, Encoded Archival Description TA (EAD), and Encoded Archival Context (EAC). N The second edition consists of two parts: “Describing Archival Materials” and DARD “Archival Authority Records.” Separate sections discuss levels of description and the importance of access points to the retrieval of descriptions. Appendices feature a list of companion standards and crosswalks to ISAD(G), ISAAR(CPF), MARC 21, EAD, S EAC, and Resource Description and Access (RDA). Also included is an index. ECON D E D ITION BROWSE ARCHIVES TITLES AT WWW.ARCHIVISTS.ORG/CATALOG D E S C R I B I N G ARCHIVES ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ A CONTENT STANDARD SECOND EDITION Chicago THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN ARCHIVISTS www.archivists.org © 2013 by the Society of American Archivists All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Describing Archives: A Content Standard, Second Edition (DACS) was officially adopted as a standard by the Council of the Society of American Archivists in January 2013, following review by the SAA Standards Committee, its Technical Subcommittee for Describing Archives: A Content Standard, and the general archival community. -
English Names of Taiwanese Young Adults Survey Part I Background
Appendix A A list of questions of the questionnaire which was sent through the Google Forms to the respondents (English version) English Names of Taiwanese Young Adults Survey Dear respondent, thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire. It is fully confidential, and the results will be used solely for our academic research. Please fill out as much of the survey as possible. Part I Background information 1. Age Your answer 2. Gender Male □ Female □ 3. Your Chinese given name Your answer 4. Education High school □ Undergraduate □ Graduate □ Postgraduate □ 5. Hometown Your answer 6. Nationality Taiwanese □ Other: 7. Mother tongue 8. Your second language (The language you have been learning the longest/are most proficient at) English □ Other: 9. How many years have you been learning English? Your answer 10. Do you enjoy using English? Yes □ No □ Part II The acquisition and use of your English name(s) 11. Do you have an English name? Yes □ No □ 12. If you do not have an English name, please explain why. Your answer If you do not have or use an English name, you do not need to answer the following questions. Thank you very much for your cooperation. 13. When did you get your first English name and who gave it to you? Your answer 14. What is your current English name? Your answer 15. Is your current English name your first English name, or has it been changed several times already? If it has been changed, please explain why, when and who gave you the name(s) you had before. -
RDA and MARC 21 Development Report to EURIG 2020 RDA Satellite Meeting, 15Th September, 2020
RDA and MARC 21 Development Report to EURIG 2020 RDA Satellite meeting, 15th September, 2020 Thurstan Young, British Library Overview • MARC 21 Background • MARC 21 Mappings in RDA Toolkit • MARC RDA Working Group www.bl.uk 2 MARC 21 Background (What is it?) • Machine Readable Cataloging 21 • Set of digital formats for the description of items catalogued by the library community • International standard for the transmission of bibliographic data • Widely used across North America, Europe and Australia www.bl.uk 3 MARC 21 Background (History) • Created in 1999 as a result of harmonizing USMARC and CAN/MARC • Adopted by the British Library in 2004 as a replacement to UKMARC www.bl.uk 4 MARC 21 Background (Structure / Content) • Field designations: three digit numeric code (from 001-999) identifies each field in a record • File structure: generally stored and transmitted as binary files, consisting of several MARC records • Content: encodes information about bibliographic resources and related entities www.bl.uk 5 MARC 21 Background (Formats) • Authority • Bibliographic • Holdings • Classification • Community www.bl.uk 6 MARC 21 Background (Development) • Discussion Papers, Proposals, Fast Track Changes • Updates issued twice a year • Sixty day embargo period to allow for implementation www.bl.uk 7 MARC 21 Background (Administration 1) • Library of Congress Network Development and MARC Standards Office • MARC Steering Group • MARC Advisory Committee www.bl.uk 8 MARC 21 Background (Administration 2) • MARC Steering Group • Library of Congress • Library and Archives Canada • British Library • Deutsche Nationalbibliothek www.bl.uk 9 MARC 21 Background (Administration 3) • MARC Advisory Committee • MARC Steering Group • Biblioteca Nacional de España • National Library of Australia • Various U.S.