Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.016168661 = product of:
  0.032337323 = sum of:
    0.032337323 = sum of:
      0.00429903 = weight(_text_:a in 5775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00429903 = score(doc=5775,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041389145 = queryNorm
          0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 5775, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5775)
      0.028038291 = weight(_text_:22 in 5775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028038291 = score(doc=5775,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14493774 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041389145 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5775, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5775)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The "Relative Index" of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) is investigated over the span of its lifetime in 22 editions of the DDC as to its character as a concept indexing system, its provision of conceptual contexts for the terms it lists, and the way in which the index intersects with special tables of categories used in the system. Striking features of the index that are discussed include how the locater function of an index is expressed in it, its practice of including concepts that have not been given specific notational locations in the system, its two methods of providing conceptual contexts for indexed terms (by means of the notation of the system and by the insertion of enhancement terms that portray conceptual context), and how the index has intersected with three types of special tables of categories in the system. Critical issues raised include the indexing of constructed or synthesized complex concepts, inconsistencies in how enhancement terms are portrayed and the absence of them in some instances, the problem of equating conceptual context with disciplinary context, and problems associated with not indexing one type of special table. Summary and conclusions are extended to problems that arise in studying the index.

Type

a

0.0021279112 = product of:
  0.0042558224 = sum of:
    0.0042558224 = product of:
      0.008511645 = sum of:
        0.008511645 = weight(_text_:a in 968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008511645 = score(doc=968,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 968, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=968)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0021060861 = product of:
  0.0042121722 = sum of:
    0.0042121722 = product of:
      0.0084243445 = sum of:
        0.0084243445 = weight(_text_:a in 2572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0084243445 = score(doc=2572,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 2572, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2572)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Review Essay zu: "The power to name: locating the Limits of Subject Representation in Libraries. By Hope A. Olson. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002. x, 261 pp. $103.00. ISBN 1-4020-0776-0". This work by Hope A. Olson is a much-pruned and rewritten version of her 1996 dissertation at the School of Library and Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Its original version is mentioned because in it she explains more fully the character of the radical feminist deconstructionist approach she brings to her task. However, the muted explanation of her perspective in the present volume does not ultimately alter the character of the work, which is both a polemic against what she concludes are male-dominated subject access tools and an apologia for a feminist understanding or approach to the tools. The central objective of The Power to Name is convincingly to characterize bias in classification and subject heading work, that is, to show that bias thoroughly marginalizes and sometimes excludes women and women minorities altogether. In the process of satisfying this objective the author also provides an etiology for the bias. Thus, the work essentially accomplishes two tasks, each of which will be examined here. Of the first of these two tasks, Olson states that her own analysis of Dewey Decimal Classification numbers and Library of Congress subject headings for eleven sample books "combines a feminist perspective with attention to particular groups of women identifying with one or more of the following: women of colour, African American women, Chicanas, lesbians, Asian American women, working class women, Jewish women, [and] North American Aboriginal women" (184). More specifically, she states that "the literature on cataloguing feminist material and materials for women illustrates that the existing standards include sexist terminology and put topics in uncongenial contexts with a sexist result. That is, they juxtapose them in classifications and references in such a way as to create a pejorative effect ... [T]hey treat women as exceptions to a masculine...

Type

a

0.0020392092 = product of:
  0.0040784185 = sum of:
    0.0040784185 = product of:
      0.008156837 = sum of:
        0.008156837 = weight(_text_:a in 5556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008156837 = score(doc=5556,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 5556, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5556)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The specter of impending change in library catalogues is strong but not very clear. In an attempt to help the clarification process, the first part of the present report discusses historical themes from the modern library catalogue legacy that has developed since the mid-nineteenth century-the origins and subsequent dominance of the dictionary catalogue for more than a century, considerations of library catalogue users and use over the same period, developments apart from the library catalogue during the twentieth century that have affected it, and aspects of the idea of the objects of a catalogue. In a second part, the general environment for the most recent period of library catalogue development is described, after which aspects of the historical legacy are used as a basis for raising questions relevant to impending library catalogue change.

Type

a

0.0016993409 = product of:
  0.0033986818 = sum of:
    0.0033986818 = product of:
      0.0067973635 = sum of:
        0.0067973635 = weight(_text_:a in 5198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0067973635 = score(doc=5198,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 5198, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5198)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Discussions of the origins of the DDC are ultimately not very satisfying because they do not answer the mor trechant question of why Dewey developed this form of access tool in the first place. That question is especially important because now at more than a century's remove from the beginnings of the system many have concluded that the DDC is essentially outmoded, and that little more than this need be said of it. Yet, this conclusion is far too simplistic an answer to a serious question about the nature of the system and its origins. The intent here is to begin a more comprehensive answer to the question of the DDC's origins, first, by summarising developments in the long history of the DDC; second, by addressing the relationship of the DDC to the 19th century classification of knowledge and the sciences movement which formed a significant broader context in which it was created; third, by addressing its relationship to the rise of library classification theory in the present century; and last, by commenting on the position of the DDC in relationship to the new post-modern library which has begun to appear

Type

a