Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

0.07307373 = product of:
  0.14614746 = sum of:
    0.14614746 = sum of:
      0.10405224 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10405224 = score(doc=3565,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.20159319 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05178292 = queryNorm
          0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
      0.042095225 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042095225 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18133497 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05178292 = 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)

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

0.033930738 = product of:
  0.067861475 = sum of:
    0.067861475 = product of:
      0.13572295 = sum of:
        0.13572295 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13572295 = score(doc=91,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.20159319 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05178292 = queryNorm
            0.6732516 = fieldWeight in 91, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=91)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Several years ago a conceptual framework was proposed that was designed to capture a bibliographic item by means of a structured approach and to present it in a structured manner in a bibliographic record: the 3-layered approach. Recently IFLA published the report of a study entitled 'Functional requirements for bibliographic records: draft report for worldwide review' for the purpose of a thorough reexamination of the question based on an analysis of user needs. The IFLA report attempted to capture the bibliographic universe through E-R analysis and to define entities, attributes of entities and relationships between them, all of which constitute the bibliographic universe. Compares the 3-layered model and the IFLA model culminating in a reevaluation of the 3-layered model

0.026282635 = product of:
  0.05256527 = sum of:
    0.05256527 = product of:
      0.10513054 = sum of:
        0.10513054 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10513054 = score(doc=5658,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20159319 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05178292 = queryNorm
            0.52149844 = fieldWeight in 5658, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5658)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.02601306 = product of:
  0.05202612 = sum of:
    0.05202612 = product of:
      0.10405224 = sum of:
        0.10405224 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10405224 = score(doc=4442,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20159319 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05178292 = queryNorm
            0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 4442, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4442)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.02601306 = product of:
  0.05202612 = sum of:
    0.05202612 = product of:
      0.10405224 = sum of:
        0.10405224 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10405224 = score(doc=4463,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20159319 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05178292 = queryNorm
            0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.021677552 = product of:
  0.043355104 = sum of:
    0.043355104 = product of:
      0.08671021 = sum of:
        0.08671021 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08671021 = score(doc=6343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20159319 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05178292 = queryNorm
            0.43012467 = fieldWeight in 6343, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.021677552 = product of:
  0.043355104 = sum of:
    0.043355104 = product of:
      0.08671021 = sum of:
        0.08671021 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08671021 = score(doc=325,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20159319 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05178292 = queryNorm
            0.43012467 = fieldWeight in 325, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=325)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.02145968 = product of:
  0.04291936 = sum of:
    0.04291936 = product of:
      0.08583872 = sum of:
        0.08583872 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08583872 = score(doc=1925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20159319 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05178292 = queryNorm
            0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 1925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.01877331 = product of:
  0.03754662 = sum of:
    0.03754662 = product of:
      0.07509324 = sum of:
        0.07509324 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07509324 = score(doc=282,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20159319 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05178292 = queryNorm
            0.3724989 = fieldWeight in 282, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=282)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.01734204 = product of:
  0.03468408 = sum of:
    0.03468408 = product of:
      0.06936816 = sum of:
        0.06936816 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06936816 = score(doc=6574,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20159319 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05178292 = queryNorm
            0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 6574, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6574)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.0151742855 = product of:
  0.030348571 = sum of:
    0.030348571 = product of:
      0.060697142 = sum of:
        0.060697142 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060697142 = score(doc=1936,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20159319 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05178292 = queryNorm
            0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1936)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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."

0.0151742855 = product of:
  0.030348571 = sum of:
    0.030348571 = product of:
      0.060697142 = sum of:
        0.060697142 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060697142 = score(doc=1956,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20159319 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05178292 = queryNorm
            0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 1956, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1956)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0151742855 = product of:
  0.030348571 = sum of:
    0.030348571 = product of:
      0.060697142 = sum of:
        0.060697142 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060697142 = score(doc=5154,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20159319 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05178292 = queryNorm
            0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 5154, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0151742855 = product of:
  0.030348571 = sum of:
    0.030348571 = product of:
      0.060697142 = sum of:
        0.060697142 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060697142 = score(doc=5165,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20159319 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05178292 = queryNorm
            0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 5165, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5165)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.010838776 = product of:
  0.021677552 = sum of:
    0.021677552 = product of:
      0.043355104 = sum of:
        0.043355104 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043355104 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20159319 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05178292 = queryNorm
            0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.010838776 = product of:
  0.021677552 = sum of:
    0.021677552 = product of:
      0.043355104 = sum of:
        0.043355104 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043355104 = score(doc=1760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20159319 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05178292 = queryNorm
            0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 1760, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.