Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Bury, S."
  • × year_i:[1980 TO 1990}
  1. Bury, S.: Ranganathan's theories embodied in both Colon Classification and the second edition of Bliss' Bibliographic Classification (1988) 0.00 
    0.004691646 = product of:
  0.02345823 = sum of:
    0.02345823 = weight(_text_:of in 271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02345823 = score(doc=271,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 271, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=271)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Relevance of Ranganathan's contributions to library science. Companion volume to Proc. of the Int. Conf. ... 11.-14.11.1985, New Dehli. Ed.: T.S. Rajagopalan
  2. Bury, S.: Comparison of classification schedules for libraries (1980) 0.00 
    0.004423326 = product of:
  0.02211663 = sum of:
    0.02211663 = weight(_text_:of in 1603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02211663 = score(doc=1603,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 1603, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1603)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Discusses the basic criteria for comparison of classification for libraries. Identifies a set of intellectual criteria, derived from the general theory of library classification as expounded by Dewey, Bliss, and Ranganathan. Compares LC, DC, and BC in relation criteria namely - order, university, hospitality, adaptability, terminology, relationship, synthesis, notational features - simplicity, brevity, expressiveness, specifity, synonymity, flexibility, correlation, case of use, revision and practical use. Highlights the value of comparative studies among classification schemes
  3. Foskett, D.J.; Bury, S.: Concept organisation and universal classification schemes (1982) 0.00 
    0.002708723 = product of:
  0.013543615 = sum of:
    0.013543615 = weight(_text_:of in 17) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013543615 = score(doc=17,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 17, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=17)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg