-
Taniguchi, S.: Expression-level bibliographic entity records : a trial on creation from pre-existing MARC records (2004)
0.02
0.023156079 = product of:
0.1080617 = sum of:
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=5658,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5658, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5658)
0.060957674 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060957674 = score(doc=5658,freq=6.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=5658,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5658, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5658)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- 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
-
Taniguchi, S.: Is BIBFRAME 2.0 a suitable schema for exchanging and sharing diverse descriptive metadata about bibliographic resources? (2018)
0.02
0.021816231 = product of:
0.10180908 = sum of:
0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 5165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033307575 = score(doc=5165,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 5165, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5165)
0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035193928 = score(doc=5165,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 5165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033307575 = score(doc=5165,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 5165, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5165)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- 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
-
Tokita, T.; Koto, M.; Miyata, Y.; Yokoyama, Y.; Taniguchi, S.; Ueda, S.: Identifying works for Japanese classics toward construction of FRBRized OPACs (2012)
0.02
0.02075909 = product of:
0.09687576 = sum of:
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 1925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=1925,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1925, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1925)
0.04977173 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04977173 = score(doc=1925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 1925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=1925,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1925, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1925)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- 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.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 50(2012) no.5/7, S.670-687
-
Taniguchi, S.: Viewing RDA from FRBR and FRAD : does RDA represent a different conceptual model? (2012)
0.02
0.017635275 = product of:
0.08229795 = sum of:
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=1936,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1936)
0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035193928 = score(doc=1936,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=1936,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1936)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- 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
-
Taniguchi, S.: User tasks in the RDA-based model (2013)
0.02
0.017635275 = product of:
0.08229795 = sum of:
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=1956,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1956, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1956)
0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035193928 = score(doc=1956,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=1956,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1956, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1956)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- 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
-
Taniguchi, S.: Examining BIBFRAME 2.0 from the viewpoint of RDA metadata schema (2017)
0.02
0.017635275 = product of:
0.08229795 = sum of:
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=5154,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5154, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5154)
0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035193928 = score(doc=5154,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=5154,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5154, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5154)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- 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
-
Taniguchi, S.: Current status of cataloging and classification education in Japan (2005)
0.01
0.011655224 = product of:
0.08158656 = sum of:
0.04079328 = weight(_text_:classification in 5752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04079328 = score(doc=5752,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.42661208 = fieldWeight in 5752, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5752)
0.04079328 = weight(_text_:classification in 5752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04079328 = score(doc=5752,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.42661208 = fieldWeight in 5752, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5752)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- 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.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 41(2005) no.2, S.121-133
-
Taniguchi, S.: Recording evidence in bibliographic records and descriptive metadata (2005)
0.01
0.010362351 = product of:
0.07253645 = sum of:
0.060332447 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060332447 = score(doc=3565,freq=8.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.0122040035 = product of:
0.024408007 = sum of:
0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024408007 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- 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
-
Taniguchi, S.: Mapping and merging of IFLA Library Reference Model and BIBFRAME 2.0 (2018)
0.01
0.009613066 = product of:
0.06729146 = sum of:
0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 5162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03364573 = score(doc=5162,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 5162, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5162)
0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 5162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03364573 = score(doc=5162,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 5162, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5162)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 56(2018) no.5/6, S.354-373
-
Taniguchi, S.: Understanding RDA as a DC application profile (2013)
0.01
0.007690453 = product of:
0.053833168 = sum of:
0.026916584 = weight(_text_:classification in 1906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026916584 = score(doc=1906,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 1906, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1906)
0.026916584 = weight(_text_:classification in 1906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026916584 = score(doc=1906,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 1906, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1906)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 51(2013) no.6, S.601-623
-
Taniguchi, S.: Aggregate and component entities in RDA : model and description (2013)
0.01
0.0067291465 = product of:
0.047104023 = sum of:
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 1951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=1951,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1951, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1951)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 1951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=1951,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1951, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1951)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 51(2013) no.5, S.580-599
-
Taniguchi, S.: Modeling resource description tasks in RDA (2015)
0.01
0.0067291465 = product of:
0.047104023 = sum of:
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 2013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=2013,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 2013, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2013)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 2013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=2013,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 2013, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2013)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 53(2015) no.1, S.88-111
-
Taniguchi, S.: Data provenance and administrative information in library linked data : reviewing RDA in RDF, BIBFRAME, and Wikidata (2024)
0.01
0.0067291465 = product of:
0.047104023 = sum of:
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 1154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=1154,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1154, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1154)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 1154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=1154,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1154, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1154)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 61(2023) no.1, p.67-906
-
Taniguchi, S.: Reevaluation of the 3-layered model in descriptive cataloguing (1997)
0.01
0.0056211445 = product of:
0.07869602 = sum of:
0.07869602 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07869602 = score(doc=91,freq=10.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- 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
-
Taniguchi, S.: Conceptual modeling of component parts of bibliographic resources in cataloging (2003)
0.00
0.0043094605 = product of:
0.060332447 = sum of:
0.060332447 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060332447 = score(doc=4442,freq=8.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- 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.
-
Taniguchi, S.: ¬A conceptual model giving primacy to expression-level bibliographic entity in cataloging (2002)
0.00
0.0043094605 = product of:
0.060332447 = sum of:
0.060332447 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060332447 = score(doc=4463,freq=8.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- 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.
-
Taniguchi, S.: ¬An analysis of the oriented-ness in cataloguing rules (1997)
0.00
0.0035912173 = product of:
0.05027704 = sum of:
0.05027704 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05027704 = score(doc=6343,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- 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
-
Taniguchi, S.: ¬A system for supporting evidence recording in bibliographic records : Part II: what Is valuable evidence for catalogers? (2007)
0.00
0.0035912173 = product of:
0.05027704 = sum of:
0.05027704 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05027704 = score(doc=325,freq=8.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- 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.
-
Taniguchi, S.: ¬A system for supporting evidence recording in bibliographic records (2006)
0.00
0.0031100856 = product of:
0.043541197 = sum of:
0.043541197 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043541197 = score(doc=282,freq=6.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- 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.
-
Taniguchi, S.: ¬A response to criticism of the 3-tiered model in descriptive cataloguing (1993)
0.00
0.002872974 = product of:
0.04022163 = sum of:
0.04022163 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04022163 = score(doc=6574,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- 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
