Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011742859 = product of:
  0.017614288 = sum of:
    0.015342529 = product of:
      0.061370116 = sum of:
        0.061370116 = weight(_text_:author's in 1170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061370116 = score(doc=1170,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.29223198 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04348591 = queryNorm
            0.21000479 = fieldWeight in 1170, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1170)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.00227176 = weight(_text_:s in 1170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00227176 = score(doc=1170,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.047279514 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04348591 = queryNorm
        0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 1170, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1170)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 31(2005), no.4, S.257-258 (B.H. Kwasnik): "According to the author, there have been many books that address the general topic of cataloging and indexing, but relatively few that focus solely an classification. This Compact and clearly written book promises to "redress the balance," and it does. From the outset the author identifies this as a textbook - one that provides theoretical underpinnings, but has as its main goal the provision of "practical advice and the promotion of practical skills" (p. vii). This is a book for the student, or for the practitioner who would like to learn about other applied bibliographic classification systems, and it considers classification as a pragmatic solution to a pragmatic problem: that of organizing materials in a collection. It is not aimed at classification researchers who study the nature of classification per se, nor at those whose primary interest is in classification as a manifestation of human cultural, social, and political values. Having said that, the author's systematic descriptions provide an exceptionally lucid and conceptually grounded description of the prevalent bibliographic classification schemes as they exist, and thus, the book Could serve as a baseline for further comparative analyses or discussions by anyone pursuing such investigations. What makes this book so appealing, even to someone who has immersed herself in this area for many years, as a practicing librarian, a teacher, and a researcher? I especially liked the conceptual framework that supported the detailed descriptions. The author defines and provides examples of the fundamental concepts of notation and the types of classifications, and then develops the notions of conveying order, brevity and simplicity, being memorable, expressiveness, flexibility and hospitality. These basic terms are then used throughout to analyze and comment an the classifications described in the various chapters: DDC, LCC, UDC, and some well-chosen examples of facetted schemes (Colon, Bliss, London Classification of Business Studies, and a hypothetical library of photographs).
- Similarly, there is very little space provided to the thorny issue of subject analysis, which is at the conceptual core of classification work of any kind. The author's recommendations are practical, and do not address the subjective nature of this activity, nor the fundamental issues of how the classification schemes are interpreted and applied in diverse contexts, especially with respect to what a work "is about." - Finally, there is very little about practical problem solving - stories from the trenches as it were. How does a classifier choose one option over another when both seem plausible, even given that he or she has done a user and task analysis? How do classifiers respond to rapid or seemingly impulsive change? How do we evaluate the products of our work? How do we know what is the "correct" solution, even if we work, as most of us do, assuming that this is an elusive goal, but we try our best anyway? The least satisfying section of the book is the last, where the author proposes some approaches to organizing electronic resources. The suggestions seem to be to more or less transpose and adapt skills and procedures from the world of organizing books an shelves to the virtual hyperlinked world of the Web. For example, the author states (p. 153-54): Precise classification of documents is perhaps not as crucial in the electronic environment as it is in the traditional library environment. A single document can be linked to and retrieved via several different categories to allow for individual needs and expertise. However, it is not good practice to overload the system with links because that will affect its use. Effort must be made to ensure that inappropriate or redundant links are not included. The point is well taken: too muck irrelevant information is not helpful. At the same time an important point concerning the electronic environment has been overlooked as well: redundancy is what relieves the user from making precise queries or knowing the "right" place for launching a search, and redundancy is what is so natural an the Web. These are small objections, however. Overall the book is a carefully crafted primer that gives the student a strong foundation an which to build further understanding. There are well-chosen and accessible references for further reading. I world recommend it to any instructor as an excellent starting place for deeper analysis in the classroom and to any student as an accompanying text to the schedules themselves."
Weitere Rez. in: Mitt. VÖB 59(2006) H.1, S.58-60 (O. Oberhauser).

Pages

XI, 181 S

0.0016395019 = product of:
  0.0049185054 = sum of:
    0.0049185054 = weight(_text_:s in 575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0049185054 = score(doc=575,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.047279514 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04348591 = queryNorm
        0.10403037 = fieldWeight in 575, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=575)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: BuB 64(2012) H.10, S.716-717 (H. Wiesenmüller)

Pages

XVI, 217 S

8.1975095E-4 = product of:
  0.0024592527 = sum of:
    0.0024592527 = weight(_text_:s in 5033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024592527 = score(doc=5033,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.047279514 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04348591 = queryNorm
        0.052015185 = fieldWeight in 5033, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=5033)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: Mitt. VÖB 60(2007) H.2, S.70-74 (O. Oberhauser): "In unseren Breiten ist der Begriff "information architecture" (IA) noch nicht sehr geläufig. Zwar existiert bereits das Äquivalent "Informationsarchitektur - so weist nicht nur die deutschsprachige Wikipedia einen entsprechenden Eintrag auf, sondern man findet auch im Dreiländerkatalog mittels Titelwortsuche "ungefähr 12" Treffer dazu -, doch wer aus unseren Kreisen vermag den Begriffsumfang anzugeben, den Terminus zu erläutern bzw. abzugrenzen? Haben wir es mit einem Modebegriff zu tun? Mit einem Quasi-Synonym zu bestehenden Begriffen wie Informations- oder Wissensorganisation? Wurden gar Klassifikation bzw. Thesaurus - eben erst zu "Taxonomien" umgemodelt - schon wieder einmal neu erfunden oder entdeckt? Geht man dem Terminus "information architecture" nach, so erfährt man, vielleicht mit einem gewissen Erstaunen, zum Beispiel folgendes: - der Begriff wurde bereits 1975 von dem Architekten und Graphikdesigner Richard Wurman geprägt, der sich damit auf eine bessere und benutzerfreundlichere, von architektonischen Prinzipien inspirierte Gestaltung von Informationen bezog; - der Terminus setzte sich allerdings erst mit der Publikation des Buches der aus dem bibliothekarischen Kontext stammenden Autoren Rosenfeld und Morville (1998, soeben in dritter Auflage erschienen) sowie einer ASIS&T-Tagung zur Definition von IA (2000) in breiteren Kreisen durch; - spätestens mit der Publikation von "Information architects" hat Wurman auch diesen, eine Tätigkeit bzw. einen Beruf beschreibenden Terminus etabliert; - seit 2002 besteht das "Information Architecture Institute" (IIA), eine Non-Profit-Organisation zur Entwicklung und Förderung von IA, mit bereits über 1000 Mitgliedern in 60 Staaten und einer Website in acht Sprachen; - (amerikanische) Universitäten haben bereits mit der Etablierung von IA-Studiengängen bzw. Vertiefungsrichtungen (etwa im Fach Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft) begonnen.

Pages

xix, 212 S