Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.056918506 = product of:
  0.11383701 = sum of:
    0.11383701 = sum of:
      0.06925862 = weight(_text_:work in 538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06925862 = score(doc=538,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.054837555 = queryNorm
          0.3440991 = fieldWeight in 538, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=538)
      0.04457839 = weight(_text_:22 in 538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04457839 = score(doc=538,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.054837555 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 538, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=538)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The elements that comprise 'style' in creative writing are directly applicable to librarians, in the choice of books and periodicals, and in the process of cataloguing and classification to make them accessible to users. By the selection and arrangement of their stock librarians reveal professional accounts of the culture they have inherited and are endeavouring to pass on to future generations. Illustrates the discussion with particular reference to the life and career of Dr. John Henry Pyle Pafford, Librarian at London University, and in particular to his views on the development of general classification schemes, such as the DDC and BC, and the work of the CRG. Concludes by noting his work in the fields of education, national and international library cooperation, and as Library-Keeper of the University

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.029718926 = product of:
  0.059437852 = sum of:
    0.059437852 = product of:
      0.118875705 = sum of:
        0.118875705 = weight(_text_:22 in 4957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.118875705 = score(doc=4957,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4957, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4957)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Aslib proceedings. 22(1970), S.90-101

0.022289194 = product of:
  0.04457839 = sum of:
    0.04457839 = product of:
      0.08915678 = sum of:
        0.08915678 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08915678 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

6. 5.2017 18:46:22

0.017314656 = product of:
  0.03462931 = sum of:
    0.03462931 = product of:
      0.06925862 = sum of:
        0.06925862 = weight(_text_:work in 2479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06925862 = score(doc=2479,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.3440991 = fieldWeight in 2479, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2479)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ranganathan always showed a great concern for the user and all the ways he or she would use a library. His work is no less applicable in the computer age, and principles such as the Five Laws of Library Science are valid no matter how information is sought. Foskett discusses user friendliness and the usefulness of facet analysis in online systems, which he says it will work very well for information storage, retrieval, and searching. Time will undoubtedly prove him correct

0.014283863 = product of:
  0.028567726 = sum of:
    0.028567726 = product of:
      0.05713545 = sum of:
        0.05713545 = weight(_text_:work in 3617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05713545 = score(doc=3617,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.28386727 = fieldWeight in 3617, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3617)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In view of the impact of systems theory for the construction of classification systems the two major contributions of Dewey are summarized as well as the new methods of facet analysis and organization brought into classification by Ranganathan. With the latter's "canonical" solution for the contents and arrangement of main classes, however, contemporary philosophical thought regarding the organization of knowledge seems to have been neglected. The work of the Classification Research Group and elsewhere considering integrative level theory will improve the science of classification systems construction. Besides this the influence from psychology and linguistics on the recognition of relationships between concepts is outlined as well as some practical implications of the systems approach on classification. (I.C.)

0.010100216 = product of:
  0.020200431 = sum of:
    0.020200431 = product of:
      0.040400863 = sum of:
        0.040400863 = weight(_text_:work in 3639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040400863 = score(doc=3639,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.20072447 = fieldWeight in 3639, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3639)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Very interesting experimental work was done by Douglas Foskett and other British classificationists during the fifteen-year period following the end of World War II. The research was effective in demonstrating that it was possible to make very sophisticated classification systems for virtually any subject-systems suitable for experts and for the general user needing a detailed subject classification. The success of these special systems led to consideration of the possibility of putting them together to form a new general classification system. To do such a thing would require a general, overall framework of some kind, since systems limited to a special subject are easier to construct because one does not have to worry about including all of the pertinent facets needed for a general system. Individual subject classifications do not automatically coalesce into a general pattern. For example, what is central to one special classification might be fringe in another or in several others. Fringe terminologies may not coincide in terms of logical relationships. Homographs and homonyms may not rear their ugly heads until attempts at merger are made. Foskett points out that even identifying a thing in terms of a noun or verb involves different assumptions in approach. For these and other reasons, it made sense to look for existing work in fields where the necessary framework already existed. Foskett found the rudiments of such a system in a number of writings, culminating in a logical system called "integrative levels" suggested by James K. Feibleman (q.v.). This system consists of a set of advancing conceptual levels relating to the apparent organization of nature. These levels are irreversible in that if one once reached a certain level there was no going back. Foskett points out that with higher levels and greater complexity in structure the analysis needed to establish valid levels becomes much more difficult, especially as Feibleman stipulates that a higher level must not be reducible to a lower one. (That is, one cannot put Humpty Dumpty together again.) Foskett is optimistic to the extent of suggesting that references from level to level be made upwards, with inductive reasoning, a system used by Derek Austin (q.v.) for making reference structures in PRECIS. Though the method of integrative levels so far has not been used successfully with the byproducts of human social behavior and thought, so much has been learned about these areas during the past twenty years that Foskett may yet be correct in his optimism. Foskett's name has Jong been associated with classification in the social sciences. As with many of the British classificationists included in this book, he has been a member of the Classification Research Group for about forty years. Like the others, he continues to contribute to the field.