Search (24 results, page 1 of 2)

0.038024075 = product of:
  0.08872284 = sum of:
    0.025663862 = weight(_text_:of in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025663862 = score(doc=3565,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
    0.045211717 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045211717 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.26126182 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
    0.017847266 = product of:
      0.035694532 = sum of:
        0.035694532 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035694532 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15376249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = 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)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

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

Source

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

0.036851943 = product of:
  0.1289818 = sum of:
    0.02348779 = weight(_text_:of in 4305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02348779 = score(doc=4305,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 4305, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4305)
    0.10549401 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10549401 = score(doc=4305,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.6096109 = fieldWeight in 4305, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4305)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Source

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

0.035446495 = product of:
  0.12406273 = sum of:
    0.018568728 = weight(_text_:of in 5752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018568728 = score(doc=5752,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 5752, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5752)
    0.10549401 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10549401 = score(doc=5752,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.6096109 = fieldWeight in 5752, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5752)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Education for cataloging: international perspectives. Part I"

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 41(2005) no.2, S.121-133

0.035044376 = product of:
  0.12265531 = sum of:
    0.022972843 = weight(_text_:of in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022972843 = score(doc=2264,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
    0.099682465 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.099682465 = score(doc=2264,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.57602817 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This article proposes a method to design cataloging rules by utilizing conceptual modeling of the cataloging process and also by applying the concept "orientedness." It also proposes a general model for the cataloging process at the conceptual level, which is independent of any situation/system or cataloging code. A design method is made up of the following phases, including the development of a general model. Functional and non-functional requirements are first specified by use of orientedness. Also, cataloger tasks are defined, which are constituents of the cataloging process. Second, a core model is built, which consists of (1) basic event patterns under each task, (2) action patterns applicable to each event, and (3) orientedness involved in an event-action pair. Third, the core model is propagated to reflect the characteristics of an individual data element and also a certain class of materials. Finally, the propagated model is defined by choosing pairs of event and action patterns in the model white referring to orientedness indicated in each event-action pair, in order to match a particular situation. As a result, a set of event-action pairs reflecting specific requirements through categories of orientedness is obtained, and consistent and scalable design can, therefore, be attained.

Source

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

0.027639832 = product of:
  0.09673941 = sum of:
    0.021386553 = weight(_text_:of in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021386553 = score(doc=4198,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
    0.07535286 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07535286 = score(doc=4198,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.43543637 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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

0.027355472 = product of:
  0.09574415 = sum of:
    0.01743516 = weight(_text_:of in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01743516 = score(doc=4463,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
    0.07830899 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07830899 = score(doc=4463,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.45251876 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

Source

Journal of documentation. 58(2002) no.4, S.363-382

0.024918856 = product of:
  0.08721599 = sum of:
    0.011863125 = weight(_text_:of in 5162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011863125 = score(doc=5162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = 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)
    0.07535286 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07535286 = score(doc=5162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.43543637 = fieldWeight in 5162, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5162)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 56(2018) no.5/6, S.354-373

0.024020405 = product of:
  0.08407141 = sum of:
    0.020132389 = weight(_text_:of in 4442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020132389 = score(doc=4442,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 4442, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4442)
    0.06393902 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06393902 = score(doc=4442,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.36948 = fieldWeight in 4442, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4442)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This paper examines differences in modeling component parts of bibliographic resources between two conceptual models in cataloging, as a continuation of the previous study that proposed a model giving primacy to expression-level bibliographic entity. First, the model by IFLA Study Group on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) was examined from the viewpoint of modeling component parts when each part in itself is a resource to be described. The examination is done on two types of component parts, a content part and a document part, which are different in terms of whether they are physically independent. This results in different structures for these two component types. Secondly, by applying the viewpoint to the model that the author proposed earlier, it has become clear that both component types can be modeled basically in the same manner, indicating the model's superiority in consistency to the FRBR model in this respect.

Source

Journal of documentation. 59(2003) no.6, S.692-708

0.02328677 = product of:
  0.08150369 = sum of:
    0.021221403 = weight(_text_:of in 1906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021221403 = score(doc=1906,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = 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)
    0.06028229 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06028229 = score(doc=1906,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.3483491 = fieldWeight in 1906, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1906)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 51(2013) no.6, S.601-623

0.022188447 = product of:
  0.07765956 = sum of:
    0.02491256 = weight(_text_:of in 5154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02491256 = score(doc=5154,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = 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)
    0.052747004 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052747004 = score(doc=5154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 5154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5154)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 55(2017) no.6, S.387-412

0.020882292 = product of:
  0.07308802 = sum of:
    0.02034102 = weight(_text_:of in 5658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02034102 = score(doc=5658,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 5658, 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=5658)
    0.052747004 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052747004 = score(doc=5658,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 5658, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5658)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 38(2004) no.2, S.xx-xx

0.020882292 = product of:
  0.07308802 = sum of:
    0.02034102 = weight(_text_:of in 1925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02034102 = score(doc=1925,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = 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)
    0.052747004 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052747004 = score(doc=1925,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 1925, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1925)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

Content

Contribution to a special issue "The FRBR family of conceptual models: toward a linked future"

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 50(2012) no.5/7, S.670-687

0.019815823 = product of:
  0.069355376 = sum of:
    0.016608374 = weight(_text_:of in 2013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016608374 = score(doc=2013,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = 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)
    0.052747004 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052747004 = score(doc=2013,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 2013, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2013)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 53(2015) no.1, S.88-111

0.019815823 = product of:
  0.069355376 = sum of:
    0.016608374 = weight(_text_:of in 5165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016608374 = score(doc=5165,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = 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)
    0.052747004 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052747004 = score(doc=5165,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 5165, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5165)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 56(2018) no.1, S.40-61

0.01918008 = product of:
  0.067130275 = sum of:
    0.014383274 = weight(_text_:of in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014383274 = score(doc=1936,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = 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)
    0.052747004 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052747004 = score(doc=1936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1936)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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."

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 50(2012) no.8, S.929-943

0.01918008 = product of:
  0.067130275 = sum of:
    0.014383274 = weight(_text_:of in 1951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014383274 = score(doc=1951,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = 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)
    0.052747004 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052747004 = score(doc=1951,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 1951, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1951)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 51(2013) no.5, S.580-599

0.01918008 = product of:
  0.067130275 = sum of:
    0.014383274 = weight(_text_:of in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014383274 = score(doc=1956,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = 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)
    0.052747004 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052747004 = score(doc=1956,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 1956, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1956)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 51(2013) no.7, S.788-815

0.018425971 = product of:
  0.0644909 = sum of:
    0.011743895 = weight(_text_:of in 1154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011743895 = score(doc=1154,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 1154, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1154)
    0.052747004 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052747004 = score(doc=1154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 1154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1154)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 61(2023) no.1, p.67-906

0.01584889 = product of:
  0.055471115 = sum of:
    0.017794685 = weight(_text_:of in 282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017794685 = score(doc=282,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 282, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=282)
    0.03767643 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03767643 = score(doc=282,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.21771818 = fieldWeight in 282, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=282)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

Source

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

0.0041512293 = product of:
  0.029058604 = sum of:
    0.029058604 = weight(_text_:of in 6343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029058604 = score(doc=6343,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.42320424 = fieldWeight in 6343, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6343)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Proposes an approach to the analysis of cataloguing rules seen as bibliographic description in terms of 'oriented-ness'. Assesses the validity and usefulness of the proposed approach and considers its problems and issues

Source

Annals of Japan Society of Library Science. 43(1997) no.3, S.129-139