Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04341168 = product of:
  0.08682336 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
    0.07824052 = weight(_text_:standards in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07824052 = score(doc=4198,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34819958 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The quality control of cataloging standards is as important as the quality control of bibliographic records. In order to aid the quality control of cataloging standards, a prototype system to analyze the ambiguity and complexity of cataloging rules was developed. Before developing the system, a standard rule unit was defined and a simple, function-like format was devised to indicate the syntactic structure of each unit rule. The AACR2 chapter 1 rules were then manually transformed into this function-like, unit role format. The systems reads the manually transformed unit rules and puts them into their basic forms based on their syntactic components. The system then applies rule-templates, which are skeletal schemata for specific types of cataloging rules, to the converted rules. As a result of this rule-template application, the internal structure of each unit rule is determined. The system is also used to explore inter-rule relationships. That is, the system determines whether two rules have an exclusive, parallel, complementary, or non-relationship. These relationships are based on the analysis of the structural parts described above in terms of the given rule-template. To assists in this process, the system applies external knowledge represented in the same fashion as the rule units themselves. Although the prototype system can handle only a restricted range of rules, the proposed approach is positively validated and shown to be useful. However, it is possibly impractical to build a complete rule-analyzing system of this type at this stage

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.5, S.338-356

0.015395639 = product of:
  0.030791279 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3565, 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=3565)
    0.02049187 = product of:
      0.04098374 = sum of:
        0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04098374 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3565, 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=3565)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

18. 6.2005 13:16:22

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.8, S.872-882

0.010731118 = product of:
  0.04292447 = sum of:
    0.04292447 = product of:
      0.08584894 = sum of:
        0.08584894 = weight(_text_:organization in 5165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08584894 = score(doc=5165,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.47760257 = fieldWeight in 5165, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5165)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Knowledge organization systems have been studied in several fields and for different and complementary aspects. Among the aspects that concentrate common interests, in this article we highlight those related to the terminological and conceptual relationships among the components of any knowledge organization system. This research aims to contribute to the critical analysis of knowledge organization systems, especially ontologies, thesauri, and classification systems, by the comprehension of its similarities and differences when dealing with concepts and their ways of relating to each other as well as to the conceptual design that is adopted.

0.006717136 = product of:
  0.026868545 = sum of:
    0.026868545 = weight(_text_:information in 1154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026868545 = score(doc=1154,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.3035872 = fieldWeight in 1154, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1154)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We examined how data provenance and additional information of element values including nomens, and administrative information on the metadata should be modeled and represented in the Resource Description Framework (RDF) for linked data of library catalogs. First, we classified such information types into categories and organized the combination with recording-units, i.e., a description statement or description set. Next, we listed the appropriate RDF representation patterns for each recording-unit. Then, we reviewed the methods to examine such information in Resource Description and Access (RDA) in RDF, BIBFRAME, and Wikidata, and pointed out the issues involved in them.

0.006007989 = product of:
  0.024031956 = sum of:
    0.024031956 = weight(_text_:information in 4305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024031956 = score(doc=4305,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 4305, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4305)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.5, S.448-460

0.00424829 = product of:
  0.01699316 = sum of:
    0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 1925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01699316 = score(doc=1925,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 1925, 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=1925)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A research project was conducted in which proper JAPAN/MARC bibliographic records for 158 major Japanese classical works were identified manually, since existing records contain little information about works included in the resources. This paper reports the detailed method used for work identification, including selecting works, obtaining the bibliographic records to be judged, and building the judgment criteria. The results of the work identification process are reported along with average numbers that indicate the characteristics of certain classics. The necessity of manual identification was justified through an evaluation of searches by author and/or title information in a conventional retrieval system.

0.0030344925 = product of:
  0.01213797 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=282,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 282, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=282)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Recording evidence for data values, in addition to the values themselves, in bibliographic records and descriptive metadata has been proposed in a previous study. Recorded evidence indicates why and how data values are recorded for elements. As a continuation of that study, this article first proposes a scenario in which a cataloger and a system interact with each other in recording evidence in bibliographic records for books, with the aim of minimizing costs and effort in recording evidence. Second, it reports on prototype system development in accordance with the scenario. The system (1) searches a string, corresponding to the data value entered by a cataloger or extracted from the Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC) record, within the scanned and optical character recognition (OCR)-converted title page and verso of the title page of an item being cataloged; (2) identifies the place where the string appears within the source of information; (3) identifies the procedure being used to form the value entered or recorded; and finally (4) displays the place and procedure identified for the data value as its candidate evidence. Third, this study reports on an experiment conducted to examine the system's performance. The results of the experiment show the usefulness of the system and the validity of the proposed scenario.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.9, S.1249-1262

0.0030344925 = product of:
  0.01213797 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=325,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 325, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=325)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Recording evidence for data element values, in addition to the values themselves, in bibliographic records and descriptive metadata is likely to be useful for improving the expressivity and reliability of such records and metadata. Recorded evidence indicates why and how data values are recorded for elements. This article is Part II of a study to explore a way of assisting catalogers in recording evidence in bibliographic records, with the aim of minimizing the costs and effort of doing so. This article begins with a scenario for utilizing recorded evidence to which a cataloger refers for information and understanding of the ways that have been adopted to record data value(s) in a given element. In line with that scenario, the proper content of evidence to be recorded Is first discussed. Second, the functionality of the system developed in Part I is extended and refined to make the system more useful and effective in recording such evidence. Third, the system's performance is experimentally examined, the results of which show its usefulness. And fourth, another system is developed for catalogers to retrieve and display recorded evidence together with bibliographic records in a flexible way.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.6, S.823-841

0.0030344925 = product of:
  0.01213797 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 1760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=1760,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1760, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1760)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to present functional requirements for bibliographic records (FRBR)-based model and functional requirements for authority data (FRAD)-based model; both of which incorporate an event concept that transforms FRBR and FRAD with minimal modification. Design/methodology/approach - Relationships between the entities defined in FRBR/FRAD are transformed into event entities and relationships with other kinds of entities. The cardinality of those relationships is also examined. In addition, a comparison of the proposed FRBR-based model with the object-oriented FRBR (FRBROO) is conducted. Findings - In the proposed event-aware FRBR model, an event and its output resource are dependent on each other and necessary information about an event can be expressed with information about its output resource, and vice versa. Therefore, the usefulness and expressiveness of the proposed model is limited. In the FRBROO model, dependency between an event and its output resource is not observed, except in a few cases, since a different resource and event modeling was adopted there. The event-aware FRAD model proposed is useful - but also the scope of its usefulness limited since dependency between an event and its input/output resource is not observed on some event entities. Originality/value - The proposed models are meaningful in terms of understanding the basic structure and features of a model that incorporates an event concept. The usefulness and limitation of event modeling have been clarified through such model building. The proposed models provide a stable basis for examining FRBR/FRAD further.

0.0030039945 = product of:
  0.012015978 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 5752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=5752,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5752, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5752)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of the current status of cataloging and classification (C&C) education in Japan and looks forward to the development in the near future. First, the current status of library and information science (LIS) education and its major issues are briefly reviewed. Second, the situation of C&C practice in Japanese libraries is briefly reviewed, since it affects C&C education. Third, the present situation and issues in C&C education are examined and described under two categories: education in LIS schools and education in LIS programs offered by other colleges and universities. Finally, on-the-job training and continuing education in the C&C domain are discussed.

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.6, S.496-512