Search (26 results, page 2 of 2)

3.8974758E-4 = product of:
  0.0062359613 = sum of:
    0.0062359613 = weight(_text_:in in 2104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062359613 = score(doc=2104,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.037112754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027283683 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 2104, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2104)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

So far terminological work has been mainly directed towards defining very special concepts. The more general ones, e.g. those denoting subject-fields have been neglected with the result that communication on this level has been seriously hampered. There exists a great number of such terms and also a growing trend for the formation of new ones. In the FRG an R&D project was started in 1972 with the collection of names of subject fields, it is intended to assemble their definitions in a dictionary and to build a general concept system by computercomparison of their characteristics as provided by their definitions. The nature of subject-fields is explained, details on the German collection are given as well as some results from a formal analysis of their concepts. It is proposed to initiate similar projects in other linguistic regions as well; this could be done under the auspices of Infoterm. Some application-possibilities for a general concept-system (e. g. a broad system of ordering) are given. The annex displays a scheme of 9 subject areas and about 90 subareas for the sorting of names of subject fields.

Content

Digitalisierter Wiederabdruck von: Dahlberg, I.: The terminology of subject-fields. In: International classificatioin. 2 (1975) no. 1, S.31-37. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_42_2015_1_f.pdf.

3.622766E-4 = product of:
  0.0057964255 = sum of:
    0.0057964255 = weight(_text_:in in 2669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0057964255 = score(doc=2669,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.037112754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027283683 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 2669, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2669)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

The German standard on the construction and further development of classification systems is introduced with its background. The contents of its 8 chapters is described. A critical appraisal considers (1) the fact that the standard does not openly deal with the optimal form of CS, viz. faceted CS, but treats them as one possibility among others, although the authors seem to have had this kind in mind when recommending the section on steps of CS development and other sections of the standard; (2) that the standard does not give any recommendation on the computerization of the necessary activities in establishing CS; and (3) that a convergence of CS and thesauri in the form of faceted CS and faceted thesauri has not been taken into consideration. - Concludingly some doubts are raised whether a standard would be the best medium to provide recommendations or guidelines for the construction of such systems. More adequate ways for this should be explored

3.450972E-4 = product of:
  0.0055215554 = sum of:
    0.0055215554 = weight(_text_:in in 3375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0055215554 = score(doc=3375,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.037112754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027283683 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 3375, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3375)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

In ISKO's name, the term "Knowledge Organization" (KO) denotes already the object and the activity area significant for the existence of any science. Both areas are outlined and their specific contents shown. Also a survey of its special subfields is given. The sciencetheoretical foundation of Knowledge Organization as a new scientific discipline is based on the propositional concept of science. Within a universal system of the sciences, KO has been regarded as a subfield of Science of Science. Concludingly it is proposed to find the necessary institution for work in concerted effort of scientists, knowledge organizers and terminologists on the collection, definition, and systematization of concepts of all subject fields, utilizing the Information Coding Classification (ICC) as the necessary categorizing structure.

3.450972E-4 = product of:
  0.0055215554 = sum of:
    0.0055215554 = weight(_text_:in in 3273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0055215554 = score(doc=3273,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.037112754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027283683 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 3273, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3273)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

Starting from the premise that extant knowledge of the discipline of Knowledge Organization ought to be made accessible by its knowledge units (concepts) this article includes short descriptions of the work of E.Wuester (Austria) and F. Riggs (USA) who both had laid foundations in this field. A noematic concept of knowledge (Diemer 1962, 474) is used for the necessary work to be done. It is shown how a concept-theoretical approach (relying on the characteristics of concepts and their system-building capacity) can be applied for pertinent terminological work. Earlier work in this regard by standardization bodies is mentioned. Seven necessary steps towards accomplishment are outlined.

3.450972E-4 = product of:
  0.0055215554 = sum of:
    0.0055215554 = weight(_text_:in in 3614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0055215554 = score(doc=3614,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.037112754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027283683 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 3614, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3614)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

Research history of the last 70 years highlights various systems for contents assessment and retrieval of scientific literature, such as universal classifications, thesauri, ontologies etc., which have followed developments of their own, notwithstanding a general trend towards interoperability, i.e. either to become instruments for cooperation or to widen their scope to encompass neighbouring fields within their framework. In the case of thesauri and ontologies, the endeavour to upgrade them into a universal system was bound to miscarry. This paper purports to indicate ways to gain from past experience and possibly rally material achievements while updating and promoting the ontologically-based faceted Information Coding Classification as a progressive universal system fit for meeting whatever requirements in the fields of information and science at large.

2.9579762E-4 = product of:
  0.004732762 = sum of:
    0.004732762 = weight(_text_:in in 2100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004732762 = score(doc=2100,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.037112754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027283683 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 2100, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2100)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

The implications of contributions from philosophy of science to classification theory and the construction of a new universal classification system are discussed. Starting from the purposes of universal systems and what has been considered so far to serve as main classes of the six existing major universal systems, the following theories have been treated: Theory of (1) knowledge, (2) knowledge elements and units, (3) systems, (4) the science concept, (5) knowledge fields including criteria for their identification, (6) a logical syntax, (7) an overall structure of object and aspect areas. Concludingly an evaluation was made with special regard to the representability (notation) of such a theory-based universal concept system by computer and in telecommunication. This, as well as the heuristics contained in such a theory-based system facilitate its general applicability