Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.046775818 = product of:
  0.093551636 = sum of:
    0.093551636 = sum of:
      0.048973244 = weight(_text_:work in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048973244 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.054837555 = queryNorm
          0.2433148 = fieldWeight in 2464, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2464)
      0.04457839 = weight(_text_:22 in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04457839 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.054837555 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2464, 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=2464)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A fascinating, broad-ranging article about classification, knowledge, and how they relate. Hierarchies, trees, paradigms (a two-dimensional classification that can look something like a spreadsheet), and facets are covered, with descriptions of how they work and how they can be used for knowledge discovery and creation. Kwasnick outlines how to make a faceted classification: choose facets, develop facets, analyze entities using the facets, and make a citation order. Facets are useful for many reasons: they do not require complete knowledge of the entire body of material; they are hospitable, flexible, and expressive; they do not require a rigid background theory; they can mix theoretical structures and models; and they allow users to view things from many perspectives. Facets do have faults: it can be hard to pick the right ones; it is hard to show relations between them; and it is difficult to visualize them. The coverage of the other methods is equally thorough and there is much to consider for anyone putting a classification on the web.

Source

Library trends. 48(1999) no.1, S.22-47

0.012243311 = product of:
  0.024486622 = sum of:
    0.024486622 = product of:
      0.048973244 = sum of:
        0.048973244 = weight(_text_:work in 4811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048973244 = score(doc=4811,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.2433148 = fieldWeight in 4811, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4811)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The power of knowledge structures is to represent, to contextualize, to communicate, and to help structure knowledge in a useful way. Traditional classifications tackle the challenges of creating knowledge structures for a wide-ranging set of concepts and are set up to reflect cumulated literary and scientific warrant for many purposes, but especially the useful ordering of knowledge. Ontologies focus on modelling domains with a vigorous dedication to eliciting the most useful entities and relationships for that domain. Both leverage structure and relationships to provide a way of representing not only the entities under consideration but also the way they work in a network of meaning. At the same time the foundation of many knowledge structures is bounded by a given perspective reflecting the purposes of that structure. This paper examines two cases, the structure of knowledge as expressed in the curriculum at an American university, and the notion of "cohabitation" as a construct that shifts in meaning over time and situations. In both cases context helps define meaning.

0.008162207 = product of:
  0.016324414 = sum of:
    0.016324414 = product of:
      0.032648828 = sum of:
        0.032648828 = weight(_text_:work in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032648828 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.16220987 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to describe how the Korean Decimal Classification (KDC), which is based on the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), accommodated translation and adaptation issues in making the scheme culturally hospitable. We made a concept-by-concept comparison of terms in selected sections of the KDC with the analogous terms or sections in the DDC, noting the differences and similarities of terms and structure. Our analysis suggests that, overall, the KDC succeeded in this endeavor, and that the process of adaptation made good use of several adaptive strategies identified in previous work: adjustments to term specificity and term location in the classificatory structure, as well as the addition of uniquely Korean terms.