Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0030283553 = product of:
  0.021198487 = sum of:
    0.021198487 = weight(_text_:with in 3761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021198487 = score(doc=3761,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.22591603 = fieldWeight in 3761, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3761)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In the library and information sciences, classification theories are used primarily for knowledge organization, either in a manual or in a machine environment. In this context, classification theories have usually been developed initially as a support for specific knowledge organization classification systems, although the theories and the systems have influenced and re-influenced each other in particular ways throughout their lives. This entry discusses theories for knowledge organization classifications using examples from a number of classification systems, but no one system is discussed at length. Instead, the entry is organized into sections that deal first with classificatory issues in general and then with theories of content, theories of structure, and theories of notation for knowledge organization classifications.

0.0030146649 = product of:
  0.021102654 = sum of:
    0.021102654 = product of:
      0.042205308 = sum of:
        0.042205308 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042205308 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:08

0.0028551605 = product of:
  0.019986123 = sum of:
    0.019986123 = weight(_text_:with in 4018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019986123 = score(doc=4018,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.21299566 = fieldWeight in 4018, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4018)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Proposes a new experimental methodology for evaluating the results of library research from the user's viewpoint. Illustrates the theory by comparing the efficacy of information retrieved from 2 document catalogues, identical except that one is alphabetical and the other numerical/verbal. The methodology utilises the concept of 3 dependent variables: 'promising references retrieved' by the researcher; 'documents read'; and 'documents cited'. Claims that the retrieval effectiveness of the techniques outlined compares favourably with that of W.S. Cooper's methodology

0.0025236295 = product of:
  0.017665405 = sum of:
    0.017665405 = weight(_text_:with in 1856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017665405 = score(doc=1856,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.18826336 = fieldWeight in 1856, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1856)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

During the twentieth century, bibliographic classification theory underwent a structural revolution. The first modern bibliographic classifications were top-down systems that started at the universe of knowledge and subdivided that universe downward to minute subclasses. After the invention of faceted classification by S.R. Ranganathan, the ideal was to build bottom-up classifications that started with the universe of concepts and built upward to larger and larger faceted classes. This ideal has not been achieved, and the two kinds of classification systems are not mutually exclusive. This paper examines the process by which this structural revolution was accomplished by looking at the spread of facet theory after 1924 when Ranganathan attended the School of Librarianship, London, through selected classification textbooks that were published after that date. To this end, the paper examines the role of W.C.B. Sayers as a teacher and author of three editions of The Manual of Classification for Librarians and Bibliographers. Sayers influenced both Ranganathan and the various members of the Classification Research Group (CRG) who were his students. Further, the paper contrasts the methods of evaluating classification systems that arose between Sayers's Canons of Classification in 1915- 1916 and J. Mills's A Modern Outline of Library Classification in 1960 in order to demonstrate the speed with which one kind of classificatory structure was overtaken by another.

0.0025236295 = product of:
  0.017665405 = sum of:
    0.017665405 = weight(_text_:with in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017665405 = score(doc=3487,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.18826336 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This paper argues that the semantic axis of bibliographic classification systems can be found in the various warrants that have been used to justify the utility of classification systems. Classificationists, theorists, and critics have emphasized the syntactic aspects of classification theories and systems, but a number of semantic warrants can be identified. The evolution of four semantic warrants is traced through the development of twentieth-century classification theory: literary warrant, scientific/philosophical warrant, educational warrant, and cultural warrant. It is concluded that further examination of semantic warrants might make possible a rationalized approach to the creation of classification systems for particular uses. The attention of scholars on faceted schemes and classificatory structures had heretofore pulled our attention to the syntactic aspects (e.g., concept division and citation order), with semantics being considered more or less a question of the terms and their relationships and somewhat taken for granted, or at least construed as a unitary aspect. Attention is on the choice of the classes and their meaning, as well as their connection to the world, and not so much on their syntactic relationship. This notion is developed by providing an historical and conceptual overview of the various kinds of warrant discernible in working with bibliographic systems. In Beghtol's definition, warrant concerns more than just the selection of terms, but rather the mapping of a classification system to the context and uses.

0.0024982654 = product of:
  0.017487857 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=666)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The interdisciplinary field of information studies requires an eclectic and imaginative curriculum. Future information professionals need intellectual tools that will enable them to adapt to changed social and technological environments. In this situation, the study of classification, including both principles application for current bibliographic systems and principles of construction that could be used to develop new systems for bibliographic and non bibliographic materials, is one way to equip students with the balanced flexibility to adapt to changing needs. Knowledge of the organization of knowledge is basic to any kind of information work

0.0024982654 = product of:
  0.017487857 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=3536,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Second, the paper posits that these different reasons for creating classification systems strongly influence the content and extent of the two kinds of classifications, but not necessarily their structures. By definition, naïve classifications for new knowledge have been developed for discrete areas of disciplinary inquiry in new areas of knowledge. These classifications do not attempt to classify the whole of that disciplinary area. That is, naïve classifications have a explicit purpose that is significantly different from the purpose of the major disciplinary classifications Hjoer-land and Nicolaisen provide as examples of classifications they think I discuss under the rubric of "naïve classifications" (e.g., classifications for the entire field of archaeology, biology, linguistics, music, psychology, etc.). My paper is not concerned with these important classifications for major disciplinary areas. Instead, it is concerned solely and specifically with scholarly classifications for small areas of new knowledge within these major disciplines (e.g., cloth of aresta, double harpsichords, child-rearing practices, anomalous phenomena, etc.). Thus, I have nowhere suggested or implied that the broad disciplinary classifications mentioned by Hjoerland and Nicolaisen are appropriately categorized as "naïve classifications." For example, I have not associated the Periodic System of the Elements with naïve classifications, as Hjoerland and Nicolaisen state that I have done. Indeed, broad classifications of this type fall well outside the definition of naïve classifications set out in my paper. In this case, too, 1 believe that Hjorland and Nicolaisen have misunderstood an important point in my paper. I agree with a number of points made in Hjorland and Nicolaisen's paper. In particular, I agree that researchers in the knowledge organization field should adhere to the highest standards of scholarly and scientific precision. For that reason, I am glad to have had the opportunity to respond to their paper.

0.0024982654 = product of:
  0.017487857 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 5844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=5844,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 5844, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5844)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The arts, humanities, and social sciences commonly borrow concepts and methods from the sciences, but interdisciplinary borrowing seldom occurs in the opposite direction. Research on narrative discourse is relevant to problems of documentary storage and retrieval, for the arts and humanities in particular, but also for other broad areas of knowledge. This paper views the potential application of narrative discourse analysis to information storage and retrieval problems from 2 perspectives: 1) analysis and comparison of narrative documents in all disciplines may be simplified if fundamental categories that occur in narrative documents can be isolated; and 2) the possibility of subdividing the world of knowledge initially into narrative and non-narrative documents is explored with particular attention to Werlich's work on text types

0.0021413704 = product of:
  0.014989593 = sum of:
    0.014989593 = weight(_text_:with in 638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014989593 = score(doc=638,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.15974675 = fieldWeight in 638, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=638)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The Iter Project ("iter" means "path" or "journey" in Latin) is an internationally supported non-profit research project created with the objective of providing electronic access to all kinds and formats of materials that relate to the Middle Ages and Renaissance (400-1700) and that were published between 1700 and the present. Knowledge representation and organization decisions for the Project were influenced by its potential international clientele of scholarly users, and these decisions illustrate the importance and efficacy of collaboration between specialized users and information professionals. The paper outlines the scholarly principles and information goals of the Project and describes in detail the methodology developed to provide reliable and consistent knowledge representation and organization for one component of the Project, the Iter Bibliography. Examples of fully catalogued records for the Iter Bibliography are included.

0.0021413704 = product of:
  0.014989593 = sum of:
    0.014989593 = weight(_text_:with in 4462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014989593 = score(doc=4462,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.15974675 = fieldWeight in 4462, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4462)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

New technologies have made the increased globalization of information resources and services possible. In this situation, it is ethically and intellectually beneficial to protect cultural and information diversity. This paper analyzes the problems of creating ethically based globally accessible and culturally acceptable knowledge representation and organization systems, and foundation principles for the ethical treatment of different cultures are established on the basis of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The concept of "cultural hospitality", which can act as a theoretical framework for the ethical warrant of knowledge representation and organization systems, is described. This broad discussion is grounded with an extended example of one cultural universal, the concept of time and its expression in calendars. Methods of achieving cultural and user hospitality in information systems are discussed for their potential for creating ethically based systems. It is concluded that cultural hospitality is a promising concept for assessing the ethical foundations of new knowledge representation and organization systems and for planning revisions to existing systems.

0.0018841656 = product of:
  0.013189158 = sum of:
    0.013189158 = product of:
      0.026378317 = sum of:
        0.026378317 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026378317 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Pages

S.19-22