Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × author_ss:"Taniguchi, S."
  1. Taniguchi, S.: Modeling resource description tasks in RDA (2015) 0.03 
    0.034475956 = product of:
  0.13790382 = sum of:
    0.015619429 = weight(_text_:of in 2013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015619429 = score(doc=2013,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 2013, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2013)
    0.12228439 = sum of:
      0.02184871 = weight(_text_:on in 2013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02184871 = score(doc=2013,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 2013, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2013)
      0.10043568 = weight(_text_:line in 2013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10043568 = score(doc=2013,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.4337094 = fieldWeight in 2013, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2013)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    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.
  2. Tokita, T.; Koto, M.; Miyata, Y.; Yokoyama, Y.; Taniguchi, S.; Ueda, S.: Identifying works for Japanese classics toward construction of FRBRized OPACs (2012) 0.01 
    0.01208817 = product of:
  0.04835268 = sum of:
    0.029222867 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029222867 = score(doc=1925,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 1925, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1925)
    0.019129815 = weight(_text_:of in 1925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019129815 = score(doc=1925,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 1925, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1925)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    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.
    Content
    Contribution to a special issue "The FRBR family of conceptual models: toward a linked future"
  3. Taniguchi, S.: Event-aware FRBR and FRAD models : are they useful? (2013) 0.01 
    0.0065761153 = product of:
  0.026304461 = sum of:
    0.01850135 = weight(_text_:of in 1760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01850135 = score(doc=1760,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 1760, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1760)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 1760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=1760,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 1760, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 69(2013) no.3, S.452-472
  4. Taniguchi, S.: Aggregate and component entities in RDA : model and description (2013) 0.01 
    0.0061127944 = product of:
  0.024451178 = sum of:
    0.013526822 = weight(_text_:of in 1951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013526822 = score(doc=1951,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 1951, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1951)
    0.010924355 = product of:
      0.02184871 = sum of:
        0.02184871 = weight(_text_:on in 1951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02184871 = score(doc=1951,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 1951, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1951)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    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.
  5. Taniguchi, S.: Examining BIBFRAME 2.0 from the viewpoint of RDA metadata schema (2017) 0.00 
    0.0029286426 = product of:
  0.02342914 = sum of:
    0.02342914 = weight(_text_:of in 5154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02342914 = score(doc=5154,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 5154, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5154)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    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.
  6. Taniguchi, S.: Understanding RDA as a DC application profile (2013) 0.00 
    0.002494722 = product of:
  0.019957775 = sum of:
    0.019957775 = weight(_text_:of in 1906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019957775 = score(doc=1906,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 1906, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1906)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    The applicability of Dublin Core Application Profiles (DCAP) and the Singapore Framework for DCAPs to Resource Description and Access (RDA) were assessed. First, a draft RDA application profile is outlined, which reveals their applicability to RDA as a whole. Then, the current situation and issues involved in defining and specifying the RDA vocabularies, description structures, and syntaxes, all of which form the RDA application profile, are reviewed, for four levels of the RDA description structure; that is, the levels of aggregates and components of statements.
  7. Taniguchi, S.: Is BIBFRAME 2.0 a suitable schema for exchanging and sharing diverse descriptive metadata about bibliographic resources? (2018) 0.00 
    0.0019524286 = product of:
  0.015619429 = sum of:
    0.015619429 = weight(_text_:of in 5165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015619429 = score(doc=5165,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 5165, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5165)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    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.
  8. Taniguchi, S.: Viewing RDA from FRBR and FRAD : does RDA represent a different conceptual model? (2012) 0.00 
    0.0016908528 = product of:
  0.013526822 = sum of:
    0.013526822 = weight(_text_:of in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013526822 = score(doc=1936,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1936)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    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."
  9. Taniguchi, S.: User tasks in the RDA-based model (2013) 0.00 
    0.0016908528 = product of:
  0.013526822 = sum of:
    0.013526822 = weight(_text_:of in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013526822 = score(doc=1956,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 1956, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1956)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    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.
  10. Taniguchi, S.: Mapping and merging of IFLA Library Reference Model and BIBFRAME 2.0 (2018) 0.00 
    0.0013945919 = product of:
  0.011156735 = sum of:
    0.011156735 = weight(_text_:of in 5162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011156735 = score(doc=5162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 5162, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5162)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Authors

Themes