Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

Taniguchi, S.: Recording evidence in bibliographic records and descriptive metadata (2005) 0.06
```
0.063524835 = product of:
  0.12704967 = sum of:
    0.12704967 = sum of:
      0.08466032 = weight(_text_:data in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08466032 = score(doc=3565,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052144732 = queryNorm
          0.513453 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
      0.04238935 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04238935 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052144732 = 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
Taniguchi, S.: Modeling resource description tasks in RDA (2015) 0.02
```
0.020161418 = product of:
  0.040322836 = sum of:
    0.040322836 = product of:
      0.08064567 = sum of:
        0.08064567 = weight(_text_:data in 2013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08064567 = score(doc=2013,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 2013, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
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.
Taniguchi, S.: Data provenance and administrative information in library linked data : reviewing RDA in RDF, BIBFRAME, and Wikidata (2024) 0.02
```
0.020161418 = product of:
  0.040322836 = sum of:
    0.040322836 = product of:
      0.08064567 = sum of:
        0.08064567 = weight(_text_:data in 1154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08064567 = score(doc=1154,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 1154, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
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.
Taniguchi, S.: ¬A system for supporting evidence recording in bibliographic records (2006) 0.01
```
0.014401014 = product of:
  0.028802028 = sum of:
    0.028802028 = product of:
      0.057604056 = sum of:
        0.057604056 = weight(_text_:data in 282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057604056 = score(doc=282,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.34936053 = fieldWeight in 282, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, 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.
Taniguchi, S.: ¬A system for supporting evidence recording in bibliographic records : Part II: what Is valuable evidence for catalogers? (2007) 0.01
```
0.012471643 = product of:
  0.024943287 = sum of:
    0.024943287 = product of:
      0.049886573 = sum of:
        0.049886573 = weight(_text_:data in 325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049886573 = score(doc=325,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.30255508 = fieldWeight in 325, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, 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.
Taniguchi, S.: Viewing RDA from FRBR and FRAD : does RDA represent a different conceptual model? (2012) 0.01
```
0.010080709 = product of:
  0.020161418 = sum of:
    0.020161418 = product of:
      0.040322836 = sum of:
        0.040322836 = weight(_text_:data in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040322836 = score(doc=1936,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, 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."
Taniguchi, S.: User tasks in the RDA-based model (2013) 0.01
```
0.010080709 = product of:
  0.020161418 = sum of:
    0.020161418 = product of:
      0.040322836 = sum of:
        0.040322836 = weight(_text_:data in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040322836 = score(doc=1956,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 1956, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, 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.
Taniguchi, S.: Design of cataloging rules using conceptual modeling of cataloging process (2004) 0.01
```
0.007200507 = product of:
  0.014401014 = sum of:
    0.014401014 = product of:
      0.028802028 = sum of:
        0.028802028 = weight(_text_:data in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028802028 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
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.
Taniguchi, S.: Event-aware FRBR and FRAD models : are they useful? (2013) 0.01
```
0.007200507 = product of:
  0.014401014 = sum of:
    0.014401014 = product of:
      0.028802028 = sum of:
        0.028802028 = weight(_text_:data in 1760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028802028 = score(doc=1760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 1760, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, 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.

Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

Years

Themes