Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Taniguchi, S."
  1. Taniguchi, S.: User tasks in the RDA-based model (2013) 0.12 
    0.11504287 = product of:
  0.1533905 = sum of:
    0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08324346 = score(doc=1956,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 1956, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1956)
    0.048027072 = weight(_text_:26 in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048027072 = score(doc=1956,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.27312735 = fieldWeight in 1956, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1956)
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=1956,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 1956, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1956)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    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.
    Date
    29. 5.2015 19:14:26
  2. Taniguchi, S.: Modeling resource description tasks in RDA (2015) 0.11 
    0.113011986 = product of:
  0.22602397 = sum of:
    0.203904 = weight(_text_:description in 2013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.203904 = score(doc=2013,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.8807909 = fieldWeight in 2013, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2013)
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 2013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=2013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 2013, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
  3. Taniguchi, S.: Understanding RDA as a DC application profile (2013) 0.10 
    0.095029645 = product of:
  0.19005929 = sum of:
    0.16477932 = weight(_text_:description in 1906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16477932 = score(doc=1906,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.71178657 = fieldWeight in 1906, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1906)
    0.025279973 = product of:
      0.050559945 = sum of:
        0.050559945 = weight(_text_:access in 1906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050559945 = score(doc=1906,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.29958594 = fieldWeight in 1906, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
  4. Taniguchi, S.: Aggregate and component entities in RDA : model and description (2013) 0.09 
    0.094303444 = product of:
  0.18860689 = sum of:
    0.16648692 = weight(_text_:description in 1951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16648692 = score(doc=1951,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.71916276 = fieldWeight in 1951, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1951)
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 1951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=1951,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 1951, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1951)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.: Data provenance and administrative information in library linked data : reviewing RDA in RDF, BIBFRAME, and Wikidata (2024) 0.09 
    0.094303444 = product of:
  0.18860689 = sum of:
    0.16648692 = weight(_text_:description in 1154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16648692 = score(doc=1154,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.71916276 = fieldWeight in 1154, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1154)
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 1154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=1154,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 1154, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
  6. Taniguchi, S.: Viewing RDA from FRBR and FRAD : does RDA represent a different conceptual model? (2012) 0.07 
    0.06992201 = product of:
  0.13984402 = sum of:
    0.11772404 = weight(_text_:description in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11772404 = score(doc=1936,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.5085249 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1936)
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=1936,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1936)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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."
  7. Taniguchi, S.: ¬An analysis of the oriented-ness in cataloguing rules (1997) 0.03 
    0.029729806 = product of:
  0.11891922 = sum of:
    0.11891922 = weight(_text_:description in 6343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11891922 = score(doc=6343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.5136877 = fieldWeight in 6343, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6343)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  8. Taniguchi, S.: ¬An analysis of orientedness in cataloging rules (1999) 0.02 
    0.024013536 = product of:
  0.096054144 = sum of:
    0.096054144 = weight(_text_:26 in 4305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.096054144 = score(doc=4305,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.5462547 = fieldWeight in 4305, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4305)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    17. 1.2000 12:24:26
  9. Taniguchi, S.: Recording evidence in bibliographic records and descriptive metadata (2005) 0.01 
    0.005059587 = product of:
  0.020238347 = sum of:
    0.020238347 = product of:
      0.040476695 = sum of:
        0.040476695 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040476695 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    18. 6.2005 13:16:22

Years

Languages

Themes