Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.016125225 = product of:
  0.03225045 = sum of:
    0.03225045 = product of:
      0.0645009 = sum of:
        0.0645009 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0645009 = score(doc=3533,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 3533, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3533)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ontology, in its philosophical meaning, is the discipline investigating the structure of reality. Its findings can be relevant to knowledge organization, and models of knowledge can, in turn, offer relevant ontological suggestions. Several philosophers in time have pointed out that reality is structured into a series of integrative levels, like the physical, the biological, the mental, and the cultural, and that each level plays as a base for the emergence of more complex levels. More detailed theories of levels have been developed by Nicolai Hartmann and James K. Feibleman, and these have been considered as a source for structuring principles in bibliographic classification by both the Classification Research Group (CRG) and Ingetraut Dahlberg. CRG's analysis of levels and of their possible application to a new general classification scheme based an phenomena instead of disciplines, as it was formulated by Derek Austin in 1969, is examined in detail. Both benefits and open problems in applying integrative levels to bibliographic classification are pointed out.

0.016125225 = product of:
  0.03225045 = sum of:
    0.03225045 = product of:
      0.0645009 = sum of:
        0.0645009 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0645009 = score(doc=1806,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Facets and general categories used in bibliographic classification have been based on a disciplinary organization of knowledge. However, facets and categories of phenomena independent from disciplines can be identified similarly. Phenomena can be classified according to a series of integrative levels (layers), which in turn can be grouped into the major strata of form, matter, life, mind, society and culture, agreeing with Nicolai Hartmann's ontology. Unlike a layer, a stratum is not constituted of elements of the lower ones; rather, it represents the formal pattern of the lower ones, like the horse hoof represents the shape of the steppe. Bibliographic categories can now be seen in the light of level theory: some categories are truly general, while others only appear at a given level, being the realization of a general category in the specific context of the level: these are the facets of that level. In the notation of the Integrative Level Classification project, categories and facets are represented by digits, and displayed in a Web interface with the help of colours.

0.0134376865 = product of:
  0.026875373 = sum of:
    0.026875373 = product of:
      0.053750746 = sum of:
        0.053750746 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053750746 = score(doc=2291,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 2291, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Disciplines are felt by many to be a constraint in classification, though they are a structuring principle of most bibliographic classification schemes. A non-disciplinary approach has been explored by the Classification Research Group, and research in this direction has been resumed recently by the Integrative Level Classification project. This paper focuses on the role and the definition of facets in non-disciplinary schemes. A generalized definition of facets is suggested with reference to predicate logic, allowing for having facets of phenomena as well as facets of disciplines. The general categories under which facets are often subsumed can be related ontologically to the evolutionary sequence of integrative levels. As a facet can be semantically connected with phenomena from any other part of a general scheme, its values can belong to three types, here called extra-defined foci (either special or general), and context-defined foci. Non-disciplinary freely faceted classification is being tested by applying it to little bibliographic samples stored in a MySQL database, and developing Web search interfaces to demonstrate possible uses of the described techniques.

0.00950188 = product of:
  0.01900376 = sum of:
    0.01900376 = product of:
      0.03800752 = sum of:
        0.03800752 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03800752 = score(doc=2527,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 2527, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2527)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The evolution of bibliographic classification schemes, from the end of the 19th century to our time, shows a trend of increasing possibilities to combine concepts in a classmark. While the early schemes, like DDC and LCC, were largely enumerative, more and more synthetic devices have appeared with common auxiliaries, facets, and phase relationships. The last editions of UDC and the UDC-derived FATKS project follow this evolution, by introducing more specific phase relationships and more common auxiliaries, like those for general properties and processes. This agrees with the Farradane's principle that each concept should have a place of unique definition, instead of being re-notated in each context where it occurs. This evolution appears to be unfinished, as even in most synthetic schemes many concepts have a different notation according to the disciplinary main classes where they occur. To overcome this limitation, main classes should be defined in terms of phenomena rather than disciplines: the Integrative Level Classification (ILC) research project is currently exploring this possibility. Examples with UDC, FATKS, and ILC notations are discussed.