Search (73 results, page 4 of 4)

3.0023666E-4 = product of:
  0.005104023 = sum of:
    0.005104023 = weight(_text_:in in 3537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005104023 = score(doc=3537,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 3537, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3537)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Source

Tendencias de investigación en organización del conocimient: IV Cologuio International de Ciencas de la Documentación , VI Congreso del Capitulo Espanol de ISKO = Trends in knowledge organization research. Eds.: J.A. Frias u. C. Travieso

3.0023666E-4 = product of:
  0.005104023 = sum of:
    0.005104023 = weight(_text_:in in 4062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005104023 = score(doc=4062,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 4062, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4062)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

2.972191E-4 = product of:
  0.005052725 = sum of:
    0.005052725 = weight(_text_:in in 1243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005052725 = score(doc=1243,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 1243, 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=1243)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Abstract

The history of book numbers starts only with Melvil Dewey, as before hom books were shelved in fixed location systems. The article traces the early attempts by Dewey himself to combine class numbers with author numbers and shows the development in the individualization of book numbers by a great number of classificationists and classifiers, among which J. Schwartz, W.S. Biscoe, Ch.A. Cutter, K.E. Sanborn, J.D. Brown, A.F. Rider and finally S.R. Ranganathan whose faceted structure and ease of application of book numbers seems still to be the optimal solution. Two rival systems of book numbers are alphabetical by author and chronological by the year of publication of a books. The concluding chapter is devoted to the existing literatur on book numbers and laments its vanishing quality. The study of book numbers is not getting due attention.

2.6001257E-4 = product of:
  0.004420214 = sum of:
    0.004420214 = weight(_text_:in in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004420214 = score(doc=3849,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Abstract

Various fields, each with its own theories, techniques, and tools, are concerned with identifying and representing the conceptual structure of specific knowledge domains. This paper compares facet analysis, an analytic technique coming out of knowledge organization (especially as undertaken by members of the Classification Research Group (CRG)), with semantic frame analysis, an analytic technique coming out of lexical semantics (especially as undertaken by the developers of Frame-Net) The investigation addresses three questions: 1) how do CRG-style facet analysis and semantic frame analysis characterize the conceptual structures that they identify?; 2) how similar are the techniques they use?; and, 3) how similar are the conceptual structures they produce? Facet analysis is concerned with the logical categories underlying the terminology of an entire field, while semantic frame analysis is concerned with the participant-and-prop structure manifest in sentences about a type of situation or event. When their scope of application is similar, as, for example, in the areas of the performing arts or education, the resulting facets and semantic frame elements often bear striking resemblance, without being the same; facets are more often expressed as semantic types, while frame elements are more often expressed as roles.

Content

Beitrag in einem Special Issue: Selected Papers from the International UDC Seminar 2017, Faceted Classification Today: Theory, Technology and End Users, 14-15 September, London UK.

2.401893E-4 = product of:
  0.004083218 = sum of:
    0.004083218 = weight(_text_:in in 571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004083218 = score(doc=571,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 571, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=571)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

2.401893E-4 = product of:
  0.004083218 = sum of:
    0.004083218 = weight(_text_:in in 6220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004083218 = score(doc=6220,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 6220, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6220)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 25(1998) no.4, S.216-218 (H.A. Olson), JASIS 50(1999) no.5, S.475-477 (B. Hjoerland); Managing information 5(1998) no.10, S.46-47 (L. Will)

2.401893E-4 = product of:
  0.004083218 = sum of:
    0.004083218 = weight(_text_:in in 3794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004083218 = score(doc=3794,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 3794, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3794)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Abstract

Looks at the influence of early Cinese philosophy, the political climate and the economic environment on the development of the Chinese classification scheme focusing on 4 major turning points in this development. These are: the Han Dynasty of the 70 BC years; the Qing Dynasty of the 1700s; the Republican period (1911-1949); and the communist years between the 1950s and the present days

2.401893E-4 = product of:
  0.004083218 = sum of:
    0.004083218 = weight(_text_:in in 4521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004083218 = score(doc=4521,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 4521, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4521)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Abstract

J. Kaiser (1868-1927) developed a system of subject indexing based on what he called "concretes" and "processes" to govern the form of subject headings and subdivisions. Although Kaiser applied his systematic indexing to specialized technical and business collections, his ideas are entirely applicable to all book collections and catalogs. Though largely ignored, Kaiser's system is of permanent interest in the study of the development of subject analysis

2.401893E-4 = product of:
  0.004083218 = sum of:
    0.004083218 = weight(_text_:in in 833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004083218 = score(doc=833,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 833, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=833)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Footnote

Artikel in einem Themenheft: The philosophy of information

2.401893E-4 = product of:
  0.004083218 = sum of:
    0.004083218 = weight(_text_:in in 5264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004083218 = score(doc=5264,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 5264, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5264)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Ethos of Care: A Festschrift for Dr. Allyson Carlyle at the Occasion of her Retirement'.

2.1229935E-4 = product of:
  0.003609089 = sum of:
    0.003609089 = weight(_text_:in in 3945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003609089 = score(doc=3945,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.10626988 = fieldWeight in 3945, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3945)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present the initial relationship between the Classification Research Group (CRG) and the Center for Documentation and Communication Research (CDCR) and how this relationship changed between 1952 and 1970. The theory of normative behavior and its concepts of worldviews, social norms, social types, and information behavior are used to characterize the relationship between the small worlds of the two groups with the intent of understanding the gap between early classification research and information retrieval (IR) research. Design/methodology/approach This is a mixed method analysis of two groups as evidenced in published artifacts by and about their work. A thorough review of historical literature about the groups as well as their own published works was employed and an author co-citation analysis was used to characterize the conceptual similarities and differences of the two groups of researchers. Findings The CRG focused on fundamental principles to aid classification and retrieval of information. The CDCR were more inclined to develop practical methods of retrieval without benefit of good theoretical foundations. The CRG began it work under the contention that the general classification schemes at the time were inadequate for the developing IR mechanisms. The CDCR rejected the classification schemes of the times and focused on developing punch card mechanisms and processes that were generously funded by both government and corporate funding. Originality/value This paper provides a unique historical analysis of two groups of influential researchers in the field of library and information science.

2.1016564E-4 = product of:
  0.0035728158 = sum of:
    0.0035728158 = weight(_text_:in in 3534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035728158 = score(doc=3534,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 3534, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3534)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Abstract

The work titled Code for CIassifiers by William Stetson Merrill is examined. The development of Merrill's Code over a period of 27 years, 1912-1939 is traced by examining bibliographic, attribution, conceptual and contextual differentes. The general principles advocated, the differentes between variants, and three controversial features of the Code: 1) the distinction between classifying vs. classification, 2) borrowing of the bibliographic principle of authorial intention, and 3) use of Dewey Decimal class numbers for classified sequence of topics, are also discussed. The paper reveals the importance of the Code in its own time, the complexities of its presentation and assessment by its contemporaries, and it's status today.

1.8014197E-4 = product of:
  0.0030624135 = sum of:
    0.0030624135 = weight(_text_:in in 1158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0030624135 = score(doc=1158,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 1158, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1158)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Abstract

Acknowledging the importance of classification not only for library and information science but also for the study and mapping of the world phenomena, in this paper we revisit and systematize the main types of classifications and focus on the species of classification mainly drawing on the work of S. R. Ranganathan. We trace the evolution of library classification systems by their structures and modes of design of various shades of classification systems and make a comparative study of enumerative and faceted species of library classifications. The value of this paper is to have a picture of the whole spectrum of existing classifications, which may serve for the study of future developments and constructions of new systems. This paper updates previous works by Comaromi and Ranganathan and is also theoretically inspired by them.