Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.05716911 = product of:
  0.085753664 = sum of:
    0.0654609 = weight(_text_:book in 5553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0654609 = score(doc=5553,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.29261798 = fieldWeight in 5553, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5553)
    0.02029277 = product of:
      0.04058554 = sum of:
        0.04058554 = weight(_text_:search in 5553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04058554 = score(doc=5553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.230407 = fieldWeight in 5553, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper suggests writing a companion work to the Bourne and Hahn book, History of Online Information Services, 1963-1976 (2003), which would feature milestone improvements in subject access mechanisms developed over time. To provide a background for such a work, a 1976 paper by Meincke and Atherton is revisited wherein the concept of Knowledge Space is defined as "online mechanisms used for handling a user's knowledge level while a search was being formulated and processed." Research that followed in the 1980s and 1990s is linked together for the first time. Seven projects are suggested for current researchers to undertake so they can assess the utility of earlier research ideas that did not get a proper chance for development. It is just possible that they may have value and be found useful in today's information environment.

0.03824898 = product of:
  0.057373464 = sum of:
    0.043640595 = weight(_text_:book in 3624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043640595 = score(doc=3624,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.19507864 = fieldWeight in 3624, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3624)
    0.013732869 = product of:
      0.027465738 = sum of:
        0.027465738 = weight(_text_:22 in 3624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027465738 = score(doc=3624,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3624, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3624)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Julia Pettee's contribution to classification theory came about as part of her work an subject headings. Pettee (1872-1967) was for many years librarian of the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was best known for the classification system she developed for the seminary and as the author of the book Subiect Headings. She was one of the first to call attention to the fact that there was a classification system in subject headings. It was, as she put it, "completely concealed when scattered through the alphabetical sequence" (p. 98). On the other hand, she recognized that an index entry was a pointing device and existed to show users specific terms. Index terms, unlike subject headings, could be manipulated, inverted, repeated, and stated in as many words as might be desired. The subject heading, she reiterated, had in it "some idea of classification," but was designed to pull together like material and, unlike the index term, would have limited capability for supplying access by way of synonyms, catchwords, or other associative forms. It is interesting that she also thought of the subject heading in context as forming a three-dimensional system. Logically this is the case whenever one attempts to reach beyond the conventional hierarchy as described an a plane surface, and, in fact, thought out as if the classification were an a plane surface. Pettee described this dimension variously as names "reaching up and over the surface ... hands clasp[ing] in the air" from an individual term (pp. 99-100). Or, in other context, as the mapping of "the many third-dimensional criss-crossing relationships of subject headings." (p. 103) Investigations following Pettee's insight have shown the nature and the degree of the classification latent in subject headings and also in the cross-references of all indexing systems using cross-references of the associative type ("see also" or equivalent terminology). More importantly, study of this type of connection has revealed jumps in logic and meaning caused by homographs or homonyms and resulting in false connections in classification. Standardized rules for making thesauri have prevented some of the more glaring non sequiturs, but much more still needs to be done. The whole area of "related terms", for example, needs to be brought under control, especially in terms of classification mapping.

Footnote

Original in: Pettee, J.: The history and theory of the alphabetical subject approach to books. New York: Wilson 1946. S.22-25.

0.03149489 = product of:
  0.094484664 = sum of:
    0.094484664 = weight(_text_:book in 4377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.094484664 = score(doc=4377,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.42235768 = fieldWeight in 4377, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4377)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Paul Otlet's exploration of the idea to record information in separate chunks or units according to the "monographic principle" has provoked considerable interest in information history for the way in which it resonates with the present tendency to conceive of information as detachable and manipulable units, whose retrieveability has become more important than the information itself. This paper aims to dissect within Otlet's historical and intellectual context the make-up of the positivist epistemology underpinning his concept of the "Universal Book." The "Universal Book" was of central importance in his theory of documentation as it proposed how documentalists- the new experts trained in documentary procedures-were to operate. These professionals were asked to gather facts or objective knowledge by removing the unwanted "dross" of subjectivity, and to synthesize those facts in an encyclopaedic form in order to make them ready for public use. Through an inquiry into the wide-ranging epistemological views prevalent in the French intellectual milieu in the belle époque-notably monism, energeticism, materialism, idealism an d spiritualism-this paper questions the positivist label that has been attributed to his concept of documentation.

0.018183582 = product of:
  0.05455074 = sum of:
    0.05455074 = weight(_text_:book in 4693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05455074 = score(doc=4693,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.2438483 = fieldWeight in 4693, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4693)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Digital unter: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS3-120044729. Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.

0.018183582 = product of:
  0.05455074 = sum of:
    0.05455074 = weight(_text_:book in 4935) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05455074 = score(doc=4935,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.2438483 = fieldWeight in 4935, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4935)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Most historical explanations of interfaces are technological and start with the computer age. We propose a different approach by focusing on the history of library and information sciences, particularly on the case of Paul Otlet (1868-1944). Otlet's attempts to integrate and distribute knowledge imply the need for interfaces, and his conceptualizations are reminiscent of modern versions of interfaces that are intended to facilitate manual and mechanical data integration and enrichment. Our discussion is based on a selection from the hundreds of images of what we may think of as "interfaces" that Otlet made or commissioned during his life. We examine his designs for interfaces that involve bibliographic cards, that allow data enrichment, his attempts to visualize interfaces between the sciences and between universal and personal classifications, and even his attempts to create interfaces to the world. In particular, we focus on the implications of Otlet's dissection of the organization of the book for the creation of interfaces to a new order of public knowledge. Our view is that the creative ways in which he faces tensions of scalability, representation, and perception of relationships between knowledge objects might be of interest today.

0.018183582 = product of:
  0.05455074 = sum of:
    0.05455074 = weight(_text_:book in 5557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05455074 = score(doc=5557,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.2438483 = fieldWeight in 5557, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5557)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Nowadays, tremendous information sources are preserved, ranging from those of a traditional nature like libraries and museums to new formats like electronic databases and the World Wide Web. Making these sources consistent, easily accessible, and as complete as possible is challenging. Almost a century ago, people like Paul Otlet were already fully aware of this need and tried to develop ways of making human knowledge more accessible using the resources and technology available at that time. Otlet's ideas about a Universal Network of Documentation and the Universal Book are clear examples of such efforts. Computer science currently provides the means to build digital spaces that consist of (multimedia) information sources connected through the Internet. In this article, we give a nontechnical overview of the current state of the art in information management. Next, we focus on those aspects of Otlet's work that deal with the organization of knowledge and information sources. Then we study the potential connections between Otlet's work and the state of the art of computerized information management from a computer scientist's point of view. Finally, we consider some of the problems and challenges that information management still faces today and what computer science professionals have in common with, and can still learn from, Otlet and his work.

0.018183582 = product of:
  0.05455074 = sum of:
    0.05455074 = weight(_text_:book in 5559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05455074 = score(doc=5559,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.2438483 = fieldWeight in 5559, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5559)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Scrutinizing the ways in which early printed reference works were designed is a way of bringing typography and book history into the domain of library and information science. The core subject of this discipline is the concept of user-oriented organization of knowledge; it has a close connection to information-seeking behavior and retrieval. By studying the typographic arrangement of knowledge in early printed reference works, one can approach the history of the storage, organization, and retrieval of scientific information. The article discusses the typographic "architecture" of the dictionaries published by the Antwerp printer Christophe Plantin and, more specifically, the three dictionaries of the Dutch language compiled by Plantin's learned proofreader Cornelis Kiliaan (ca. 1530-1607). Kiliaan was one of the first authors to introduce etymology and comparative linguistics into his dictionaries. By analyzing the typographic macrostructures and microstructures of his works, it is possible to discover the lines along which they developed-in the words of Paul Valéry-into machines à savoir. The article also compares Plantin's dictionaries with the international benchmark for lexicographic publishing in the Renaissance world, viz. the translation dictionaries compiled and printed by the Parisian publisher Robert Estienne.

0.018183582 = product of:
  0.05455074 = sum of:
    0.05455074 = weight(_text_:book in 5561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05455074 = score(doc=5561,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.2438483 = fieldWeight in 5561, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5561)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The author discusses the architectural plans of the Mundaneum made in the 1930s by the Belgian modernist architect Maurice Heymans in the footsteps of Le Corbusier and in collaboration with Paul Otlet. The Mundaneum was the utopian concept of a world center for the accumulation, organization, and dissemination of knowledge, invented by the visionary encyclopedist and internationalist Paul Otlet. In Heymans's architecture, a complex architectural metaphor is created for the Mundaneum, conveying its hidden meaning as a center of initiation into synthesized knowledge. In particular, this article deconstructs the metaphorical architectural complex designed by Heymans and focuses on how the architectural spaces as designed by Heymans are structured in analogy to schemes for the organization of knowledge made by Otlet. In three different designs of the Mundaneum, the analogy is studied between, on the one hand, the architectural structure (designed by Heymans) and, on the other hand, the structure of the cosmology, the book Monde, and the vision of knowledge dissemination as invented by Otlet. The article argues that the analogies between the organization of architectural space and knowledge, as expressed in the drawings of Heymans and Otlet, are elaborated by means of a mode of visual thinking that is parallel to and rooted in the art of memory and utopian imagination.

0.014546866 = product of:
  0.043640595 = sum of:
    0.043640595 = weight(_text_:book in 3630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043640595 = score(doc=3630,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.19507864 = fieldWeight in 3630, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3630)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Julia Pettee's contribution to classification theory came about as part of her work an subject headings. Pettee (1872-1967) was for many years librarian of the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was best known for the classification system she developed for the seminary and as the author of the book Subiect Headings. She was one of the first to call attention to the fact that there was a classification system in subject headings. It was, as she put it, "completely concealed when scattered through the alphabetical sequence" (p. 98). On the other hand, she recognized that an index entry was a pointing device and existed to show users specific terms. Index terms, unlike subject headings, could be manipulated, inverted, repeated, and stated in as many words as might be desired. The subject heading, she reiterated, had in it "some idea of classification," but was designed to pull together like material and, unlike the index term, would have limited capability for supplying access by way of synonyms, catchwords, or other associative forms. It is interesting that she also thought of the subject heading in context as forming a three-dimensional system. Logically this is the case whenever one attempts to reach beyond the conventional hierarchy as described an a plane surface, and, in fact, thought out as if the classification were an a plane surface. Pettee described this dimension variously as names "reaching up and over the surface ... hands clasp[ing] in the air" from an individual term (pp. 99-100). Or, in other context, as the mapping of "the many third-dimensional criss-crossing relationships of subject headings." (p. 103) Investigations following Pettee's insight have shown the nature and the degree of the classification latent in subject headings and also in the cross-references of all indexing systems using cross-references of the associative type ("see also" or equivalent terminology). More importantly, study of this type of connection has revealed jumps in logic and meaning caused by homographs or homonyms and resulting in false connections in classification. Standardized rules for making thesauri have prevented some of the more glaring non sequiturs, but much more still needs to be done. The whole area of "related terms", for example, needs to be brought under control, especially in terms of classification mapping.

0.014546866 = product of:
  0.043640595 = sum of:
    0.043640595 = weight(_text_:book in 3633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043640595 = score(doc=3633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.19507864 = fieldWeight in 3633, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3633)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Julia Pettee's contribution to classification theory came about as part of her work an subject headings. Pettee (1872-1967) was for many years librarian of the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was best known for the classification system she developed for the seminary and as the author of the book Subiect Headings. She was one of the first to call attention to the fact that there was a classification system in subject headings. It was, as she put it, "completely concealed when scattered through the alphabetical sequence" (p. 98). On the other hand, she recognized that an index entry was a pointing device and existed to show users specific terms. Index terms, unlike subject headings, could be manipulated, inverted, repeated, and stated in as many words as might be desired. The subject heading, she reiterated, had in it "some idea of classification," but was designed to pull together like material and, unlike the index term, would have limited capability for supplying access by way of synonyms, catchwords, or other associative forms. It is interesting that she also thought of the subject heading in context as forming a three-dimensional system. Logically this is the case whenever one attempts to reach beyond the conventional hierarchy as described an a plane surface, and, in fact, thought out as if the classification were an a plane surface. Pettee described this dimension variously as names "reaching up and over the surface ... hands clasp[ing] in the air" from an individual term (pp. 99-100). Or, in other context, as the mapping of "the many third-dimensional criss-crossing relationships of subject headings." (p. 103) Investigations following Pettee's insight have shown the nature and the degree of the classification latent in subject headings and also in the cross-references of all indexing systems using cross-references of the associative type ("see also" or equivalent terminology). More importantly, study of this type of connection has revealed jumps in logic and meaning caused by homographs or homonyms and resulting in false connections in classification. Standardized rules for making thesauri have prevented some of the more glaring non sequiturs, but much more still needs to be done. The whole area of "related terms", for example, needs to be brought under control, especially in terms of classification mapping.

0.00801084 = product of:
  0.02403252 = sum of:
    0.02403252 = product of:
      0.04806504 = sum of:
        0.04806504 = weight(_text_:22 in 3363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04806504 = score(doc=3363,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3363, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3363)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 2.2013 12:10:07

0.007891634 = product of:
  0.0236749 = sum of:
    0.0236749 = product of:
      0.0473498 = sum of:
        0.0473498 = weight(_text_:search in 5540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0473498 = score(doc=5540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 5540, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The 1890s saw an explosion of ambitious projects to build a massive classification of knowledge that would serve as a basis for universal catalogues of scientific publishing. The largest of these were the rival International Catalogue of Scientific Literature (London) and Répertoire Bibliographique Universel (Brussels). This essay argues that one widely influential but overlooked source of the enthusiasm for classification as a technology of search and retrieval during this period was the emergence of new methods and technologies for classifying and keeping track of people, and in particular, the criminal identification laboratory of Alphonse Bertillon located in Paris.

0.003945817 = product of:
  0.01183745 = sum of:
    0.01183745 = product of:
      0.0236749 = sum of:
        0.0236749 = weight(_text_:search in 3635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0236749 = score(doc=3635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.1344041 = fieldWeight in 3635, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3635)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The idea of computing with concepts as mathematicians manipulate variables in equations goes back at least as far as G. W. Leibniz (1663). Leibniz dreamed of a universal calculus, an ambiguity-free language, with which scholars could communicate ideas with mathematical precision. George Boole, in his investigation of the laws of thought, contributed to the realization of this idea by developing a calculus of classes (1847). A modern visionary who saw a practical application of Boole's work and further contributed to the idea of communicating by "computing" was Mortimer Taube (1910-1965), a member of the Library of Congress staff from 1944 to 1949 who later founded Documentation, Inc. He proposed communicating with a mechanized information store by combining concepts using the Boolean operators, AND, OR and NOT. The following selection contains one of the first presentations of a technique Taube called "coordinate indexing" and what later has come to be called "post coordinate indexing" or Boolean searching. This selection is interesting an three counts. It is interesting first of all because of its early date-1950. Though the idea of coordinate indexing had been anticipated in manual systems of the punched card sort, these systems were limited, relying for the most part an repeated application of the AND operator. To conceptualize the full power that could be achieved by Boolean search strategy in mechanized systems was an imaginative step forward. Second, the selection is interesting insofar as the idea of coordinate indexing is couched, indeed nearly hidden, in a somewhat ponderous essay an the compatibility of universal and special classifications and the merits of different methods of information organization. Ponderous though it is, the essay is worth a careful reading. The perspective it gives is enlightening, a reminder that the roots of information science reach far back into the bibliographic past. The third and perhaps most interesting aspect of this selection is that in it Taube looks beyond the technique of coordinate indexing to envisage its implications an bibliographic organization. (Now more than thirty years later we are still attempting to understand these implications.) What Taube saw was a new method of bibliographic organization, which, not ingenuously, he observed might seem almost bumptious in the face of a two thousand year history of organizing information. This "new" method was, however, being proposed elsewhere, albeit in different guise, by S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.) and his school. It was the method of organizing information using abstract categories called fields or facets. These categories, unlike those used in the great traditional classifications, were not locked in procrustean hierarchical structures, but could be freely synthesized or combined in indexing or retrieval. In short, Taube's voice was among those at midcentury supporting the move from enumerative to synthetic subject approaches. The fact that it was an American voice and one especially weIl informed about bibliography and computers is perhaps what led Jesse Shera to refer to Taube as "the Melvil Dewey ... of midtwentieth century American Librarianship," one who was able "to weld successfully conventional librarianship and the then-emerging information science."