Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Bettella, C."
  1. Bettella, C.; Carrara, M.: Classifications: on philosophers and librarians (2009) 0.00 
    0.0032090992 = product of:
  0.0064181983 = sum of:
    0.0064181983 = product of:
      0.012836397 = sum of:
        0.012836397 = weight(_text_:a in 3265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012836397 = score(doc=3265,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.24171482 = fieldWeight in 3265, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Consider the following argument: (Premise 1) If a librarian is a classifier and (Premise 2) a librarian classifies (among the other things) the documents of a library, and (Premise 3) to classify documents is equivalent to classifying the objects of a knowledge base, but (Premise 4) to classify the objects of a knowledge base is equivalent to producing an ontology, or is equivalent to doing some ontological engineering, then (Conclusion) a classifier- i.e. a librarian-is an ontologist. The same train of thought can be followed for those disciplinary experts who support librarians in activities like classification. Thus, librarians and experts are classifiers, and if classifiers are ontologists, librarians and experts are ontologists. Here the problem arises: which specific kind of ontology is in the librarian's mind? Which one in the expert's mind? We argue that the librarians' ontology is completely different from the expert's. Experts' ontology is a thematic ontology, librarians' ontology is generalistic. This conclusion is particularly clear in the philosophical case.
    Type
    a
  2. Bettella, C.; Capodaglio, C.; Ramous, C.; Vettore, M.C.: Declassifying the Library of Congress Classification : the case of the Department of Philosophy Library at the University of Padova (Padua, Italy) (2009) 0.00 
    0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=3271,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The ongoing project to revise the arrangement of the open shelves library collections occasioned a historiographic account of the implementation phases of the Library of Congress Classification (LCC), subclasses B-BJ - Philosophy and Psychology, at the Library of the Department of Philosophy of the University of Padua (Italy). The schema was adopted as a collection shelving and location device since the Library institution in 1997. The LCC international acknowledgement and the neutral framework of the schema have undoubtedly played a role of driving factors at the first stage of the selection process. However, the implementation of the classification scheme had to consider critical issues like the shortage of the library area, the selection criteria of the appropriate bibliographic material, as well as the effort to settle and tailor the original schema to the specific needs of the library collections and its end-users. The purpose of this paper is twofold: from one hand, we aim to examine in detail each stage of the implementation project in order to provide a preliminary impact evaluation of the classification schema both on the collections management and development and on the research practices of the local users community; from the other, we intend to highlight the principal factors that have implied a sort of declassification process of the system itself. In conclusion, we argue that the declassification of library collections can be read, from a bottom-up perspective, as index of vitality of the collections themselves, as well as a valuable basis for planning the next steps of the Library project.
    Type
    a
  3. Bettella, C.; Carrara, M.: ¬The philosophy of classifying philosophy : preface to special issue (2009) 0.00 
    0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 3264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=3264,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3264, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Most of the articles published in this special issue are a selection of the talks given at the workshop on Classifying the Human Sciences: The Case of Philosophy held on February 2, 2007, at the University of Padua (Padua, Italy). The conference has been organized by the Library of the Department of Philosophy (University of Padua), in association with the Italian ISKO Chapter, and sponsored by the University Library System of the University of Padua. The aim of the workshop was to discuss themes of knowledge organization for philosophy and classification of philosophical data, specifically in libraries of philosophy. For these reasons experts on classification theory, philosophers, and philosophy librarians were invited to the event. We would like to thank the participants and the organizers of the workshop; special thanks to Prof. Francesca Menegoni and Prof. Luca Illetterati, Directors of the Library of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Padua; Claudio Gnoli, chair of the Italian ISKO Chapter, and Pio Liverotti, Coordinator of theHumanities Libraries at the University of Padua.
    Type
    a

Authors