Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011939922 = product of:
  0.041789725 = sum of:
    0.025962738 = weight(_text_:with in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025962738 = score(doc=3565,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2766895 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
    0.015826989 = product of:
      0.031653978 = sum of:
        0.031653978 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031653978 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

In this article recording evidence for data values in addition to the values themselves in bibliographic records and descriptive metadata is proposed, with the aim of improving the expressiveness and reliability of those records and metadata. Recorded evidence indicates why and how data values are recorded for elements. Recording the history of changes in data values is also proposed, with the aim of reinforcing recorded evidence. First, evidence that can be recorded is categorized into classes: identifiers of rules or tasks, action descriptions of them, and input and output data of them. Dates of recording values and evidence are an additional class. Then, the relative usefulness of evidence classes and also levels (i.e., the record, data element, or data value level) to which an individual evidence class is applied, is examined. Second, examples that can be viewed as recorded evidence in existing bibliographic records and current cataloging rules are shown. Third, some examples of bibliographic records and descriptive metadata with notes of evidence are demonstrated. Fourth, ways of using recorded evidence are addressed.

Date

18. 6.2005 13:16:22

0.003568951 = product of:
  0.024982655 = sum of:
    0.024982655 = weight(_text_:with in 325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024982655 = score(doc=325,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2662446 = fieldWeight in 325, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=325)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.003568951 = product of:
  0.024982655 = sum of:
    0.024982655 = weight(_text_:with in 1760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024982655 = score(doc=1760,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2662446 = fieldWeight in 1760, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1760)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.0035330812 = product of:
  0.024731567 = sum of:
    0.024731567 = weight(_text_:with in 2013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024731567 = score(doc=2013,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2635687 = fieldWeight in 2013, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2013)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This study aims to model the resource description tasks that are performed by catalogers. First, a model of authority data creator tasks is derived from Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), since FRAD partially includes such task modeling. Second, modeling of resource description tasks in line with Resource Description and Access (RDA) is conducted to cover the whole resource description tasks including those on descriptive data as well as those on authority data, and also to reflect RDA instructions as much as possible. Third, the modeling of resource description tasks is compared with that of user tasks in order to understand their differences.

0.0030908023 = product of:
  0.021635616 = sum of:
    0.021635616 = weight(_text_:with in 282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021635616 = score(doc=282,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2305746 = fieldWeight in 282, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=282)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.0030283553 = product of:
  0.021198487 = sum of:
    0.021198487 = weight(_text_:with in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021198487 = score(doc=4463,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.22591603 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This paper proposes a conceptual model for cataloging which gives primacy to expression-level bibliographic entity, with the aim of approaching critical issues in cataloging, such as the so-called "format variations" and "content versus carrier" issues. The term "expression" is defined as "the intellectual or artistic realization of a work in the form of alpha-numeric, musical, or choreographic notation, etc." In this paper, the model by the IFLA Study Group on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) is first re-examined and at the same time the outline of a new model giving primacy to expression-level entity is illustrated by indicating differences from the FRBR model. Second, by applying the concept "user tasks," found in the FRBR model, to the new model outlined in this paper, a scenario on how entities are used by users is created. Third, some examples of bibliographic record equivalents in line with the new model are shown.

0.0028551605 = product of:
  0.019986123 = sum of:
    0.019986123 = weight(_text_:with in 6574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019986123 = score(doc=6574,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.21299566 = fieldWeight in 6574, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6574)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Describes a conceptual framework, the 3-tiered model, proposed in 1990 the purpose of which was to capture a bibliographic item in a structured way thereby confronting some of the problems associated with descriptive cataloguing. Attempts to answer questions about and criticisms of the model, especially those of Yasuo Iwashita and Tsutomu Shihota. Provides arguments to show that the criticisms are not justified

0.0024982654 = product of:
  0.017487857 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 5658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=5658,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 5658, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5658)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This paper reports on a study to investigate the feasibility of creating bibliographic records in accordance with a model giving primacy to expression-level entity, through attempts on converting existing MARC records. First, methods of creating records were examined in terms of the structure of records. A method that explicitly shows the structure of the model on which records were based was then selected. Secondly, a trial was conducted to convert USMARC bibliographic records into those structured according to the method selected, by developing programs to facilitate conversion. Thirdly, a prototype system to use the structured records was developed in order to demonstrate the usefulness of such records.

0.0024982654 = product of:
  0.017487857 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 1925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=1925,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 1925, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1925)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.0024982654 = product of:
  0.017487857 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=1936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1936)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Resource Description and Access (RDA) was analyzed through a comparison between the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD) models and the model that RDA directly reflects. First, it was clarified that RDA adopts the FRBR entities but with some differences, such as the relationship between work and manifestation and the treatment of "title of the expression." Second, for the FRAD scope, a slightly different model that reflects RDA directly was proposed, incorporating the decomposition of FRAD entities as well as a new entity "description."

0.0024982654 = product of:
  0.017487857 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 1951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=1951,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 1951, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1951)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Based on the distinction between model and description in Resource Description and Access (RDA), the modeling and description of aggregate and component entities in RDA was examined. Guidelines and instructions related to such modeling were extracted from RDA and reconciled. After introducing additional assumptions, five possible model patterns of aggregate and component entities were developed. Then, the mapping between these model patterns and the manifestation types was clarified, revealing which model patterns are applicable to a given type of manifestation. Finally, RDA instructions on descriptions for aggregates/components were examined, and it was clarified that they do not have any conflict with the modeling.

0.0024982654 = product of:
  0.017487857 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=1956,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 1956, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1956)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

I examine user tasks and their related issues in the model that reflects Resource Description and Access (RDA) directly, which complements prior studies that dealt mainly with entities and their attributes and relationships. First, the definitions of user tasks in Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), and RDA, respectively, are reviewed. Then, mappings between attributes and relationships of the RDA entities to the user tasks are proposed for the RDA-based model; the mapping covering Group 1 and 2 entities, and that for the other entities. The resultant RDA mappings and those shown in FRBR and FRAD are compared, which reveals the superiority of the former mappings.

0.0024982654 = product of:
  0.017487857 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 5154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=5154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 5154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5154)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This article examines BIBFRAME 2.0 from the viewpoint of RDA metadata schema, that is, whether the present BIBFRAME is suitable for exchange and sharing of metadata created with RDA. First, an overview of RDA and BIBFRAME models is provided. Second, mapping examples of metadata records and part of the mapping tables from RDA to BIBFRAME are demonstrated. Third, some issues involved in the mapping are investigated: treatment of RDA Expression in BIBFRAME, mapping of RDA elements to BIBFRAME properties, and conversion of extant MARC21 bibliographic records to BIBFRAME metadata.

0.0024982654 = product of:
  0.017487857 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 5165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=5165,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 5165, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5165)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.0024982654 = product of:
  0.017487857 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 1154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=1154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 1154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1154)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.