Search (94 results, page 2 of 5)

0.0036685336 = product of:
  0.011005601 = sum of:
    0.011005601 = weight(_text_:a in 7410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011005601 = score(doc=7410,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 7410, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7410)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Once the library has been through a process of transition from traditional library procedures to automated ones, natural language searching became a necessity for both indexers and searchers. Therefore, aside from the precoordinated classified catalogue we started to build a dictionary of terms in order to make postcoordinate search possible in keeping with the UDC notations assigned to each bibliographic record. After a while we came to the conclusion that the dictionary needed a control of its terms so that synonymous concepts and semantic ambuguities be avoided. The project presented in this paper shows how reality imposed the improvement of the quality of indexing and hence of the searching possibilities. Is also shows the reasons why we consider a multilingual thesaurus based on UDC an ideal indexing and searching device. The experiment applied on class 8 of UDC illustrates the way the UDC tables can be quite successfully used in building a thesaurus due to their qulities and how their limitations can be overcome by a thesaurus. An appendix to the paper contains a sample of the multilingual thesaurus given in both alphabetical and systematic layouts

Type

a

0.0036685336 = product of:
  0.011005601 = sum of:
    0.011005601 = weight(_text_:a in 5570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011005601 = score(doc=5570,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 5570, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5570)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Dagobert Soergel opened the discussion by saying, "Users need our help to find and make sense of information." He said that he believes that classification can provide much of the support users need. He sees little distinction between the concept of a thesaurus and that of classification since both seek to provide structure for knowledge bases in order to facilitate information retrieval. Soergel's discussion of his concept of a multifunctional, multilingual thesaurus comprised the bulk of his presentation. This thesaurus would be a database of concepts, terms, and relationships which would include classification. In this context, classification has a much broader set of functions than it currently does in most American libraries where classification serves primarily as a method of shelf arrangement. The thesaurus Soergel envisions would lay out the semantic map of a field and could therefore be used as a learning tool or as a basis for research planning, or to assist users in clarifying terms and concepts. It could support indexing and searching and provide for the organization of knowledge for expert systems and other artificial intelligence applications. Among its other features, such a thesaurus could assist users in making sense of information by providing structured presentation of search results based on user needs and preferences, and it could enhance natural language processing capabilities such as automated indexing and abstracting and machine translation.

Type

a

0.0035395343 = product of:
  0.010618603 = sum of:
    0.010618603 = weight(_text_:a in 2108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010618603 = score(doc=2108,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 2108, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2108)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

It will not be an easy task to automate the Library of Congress Classification schedules because it is a very large system and also because it developed long before automation. The designers were creating a system for shelving books effiently and had not even imagined the constraints imposed by automation. A number of problems and possible solutions are discussed. The MARC format proposed for classification has some serious problems which are identified

Type

a

0.0034978096 = product of:
  0.010493428 = sum of:
    0.010493428 = weight(_text_:a in 2414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010493428 = score(doc=2414,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 2414, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2414)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Two interfaces are described for navigating large collections of document and book records. An Online Public Access Catalog interface uses a classification hierarchy to facilitate browsing and searching. The system has been implemented and currently runs with over 50,000 book records. Interface widgets allow the hierarchy to be displayed and traversed easily. For example, the Book Shelf dynamically updates itself to reflect searches and attribute selections. A second interface, not yet fully implemented, allows access to the ACM Computing Reviews classification. By browsing a graphic structure such as a classification hierarchy or term network, the user can select or negate terms to incrementally enlarge or refine the query. A number of systems have been proposed that utilise this type of interface: Allen [1] allows users to traverse sections of a classification hierarchy that are adjacent to documents retrieved by a search; Doyle [6] discusses a graph-based interactive browsing environment; Croft [4] extends Doyle's termbased graph with vertices and edges representing individual documents and their degrees of similarity to each other; Frei and Jauslin [7] use tree structures to represent both system command menus and document indexing structures; and Godin [10] and Pedersen [16] model a collection's conceptual structure with termdocument lattices.

Type

a

0.00325127 = product of:
  0.009753809 = sum of:
    0.009753809 = weight(_text_:a in 3842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009753809 = score(doc=3842,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 3842, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3842)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Ranganathan's canons, principles, and postulates can easily confuse readers, especially because he revised and added to them in various editions of his many books. The Classification Research Group, who drew on Ranganathan's work as their basis for classification theory but developed it in their own way, has never clearly organized all their equivalent canons and principles. In this article Spiteri gathers the fundamental rules from both systems and compares and contrasts them. She makes her own clearer set of principles for constructing facets, stating the subject of a document, and designing notation. Spiteri's "simplified model" is clear and understandable, but certainly not simplistic. The model does not include methods for making a faceted system, but will serve as a very useful guide in how to turn initial work into a rigorous classification. Highly recommended

Type

a

0.00325127 = product of:
  0.009753809 = sum of:
    0.009753809 = weight(_text_:a in 726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009753809 = score(doc=726,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 726, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=726)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper documents the continuing relevance of facet analysis as a technique for searching and organising WWW based materials. The 2 approaches underlying WWW searching and indexing - word and concept based indexing - are outlined. It is argued that facet analysis as an a posteriori approach to classification using words from the subject field as the concept terms in the classification derived represents an excellent approach to searching and organising the results of WWW searches using either search engines or search directories. Finally it is argued that the underlying philosophy of facet analysis is better suited to the disparate nature of WWW resources and searchers than the assumptions of contemporaray IR research.
This article gives a cheerfully brief and undetailed account of how to make a faceted classification system, then describes information retrieval and searching on the web. It concludes by saying that facets would be excellent in helping users search and browse the web, but offers no real clues as to how this can be done.

Type

a

0.003128536 = product of:
  0.009385608 = sum of:
    0.009385608 = weight(_text_:a in 5163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009385608 = score(doc=5163,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 5163, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5163)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A new design for the DDC allows for display of the schedules and indexes in a hypertextual browser which was originally designed for the more conventional thesaurus with BT-NT, RT and USE-UF relations. Features of the DDC which approxumate those relations and the presentation of the rich vocabulary found in the hierarchical structure, captions, index entries and notes are represented for the library user's perusal and choice before searching a library's holdings. By dragging and dropping parts from such a display into a search window, the search for bibliographic items can begin and revised painlessly. Information such as class numbers of subject headings for retrieved items can be dragged and dropped into the searchw indow of the Visual Dewey display window as it suits the user to review vocabulary or revise the search results. This seamless to-ing and fro-ing allows for a truly interactive and spontaneous search environment, with maximum assistance at point of need. 'File folders' exist for saving any Visual Dewey information, any retrieved items, etc.

Type

a

0.003128536 = product of:
  0.009385608 = sum of:
    0.009385608 = weight(_text_:a in 5825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009385608 = score(doc=5825,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 5825, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5825)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The study of faceted classification systems has primarily been directed towards application for precombined catalogues or bibliographies, not so much for use in post coordinated retrieval systems. Argues that faceted classification systems in some respects are superior to other techniques of on-line retrieval as far as facet and concept analysis is combined with an expressive notational system in order to guide a form of retrieval which will use Boolean operators (for combining the facets regardless of one special citation order) and truncation for retrieving hierarchically different sets of documents. This point of view is demonstrated by 2 examples. The 1st one uses a short classification system derived from B. Buchanan and the 2nd is built upon the classification system used by Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Further discussion is concerned with some possible consequences which could be derived from a retrieval with PRECIS strings
"Online retrieval" conjures up a very different mental image now than in 1991, the year this article was written, and the year Tim Berners-Lee first revealed the new hypertext system he called the World Wide Web. Gödert shows that truncation and Boolean logic, combined with notation from a faceted classification system, will be a powerful way of searching for information. It undoubtedly is, but no system built now would require a user searching for material on "nervous systems of bone fish" to enter "Fdd$ and Leaa$". This is worth reading for someone interested in seeing how searching and facets can go together, but the web has made this article quite out of date.

Type

a

0.0030970925 = product of:
  0.009291277 = sum of:
    0.009291277 = weight(_text_:a in 7715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009291277 = score(doc=7715,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 7715, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7715)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The ILSA prototype was developed using an object-oriented multimedia user interfcae on six NeXT workstations with two databases: the first with 100.000 MARC records and the second with 20.000 additional records enhanced with table of contents data. The items are grouped into subject clusters consisting of the classification number and the first subject heading assigned. Every other distinct keyword in the MARC record is linked to the subject cluster in an automated natural language mapping scheme, which leads the user from the term entered to the controlled vocabulary of the subject clusters in which the term appeared. The use of a hierarchical classification number (Dewey) makes it possible to broaden or narrow a search at will

Type

a

0.0030970925 = product of:
  0.009291277 = sum of:
    0.009291277 = weight(_text_:a in 661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009291277 = score(doc=661,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 661, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=661)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: STRACHAN, P.D.: UDC revision work in FID; SCIBOR, E. u. I.S. SHCHERBINA-SAMOJLOVA: A strategic approach to to revising the UDC; MCILWAINE, I.: The work of the system development task force; WILLIAMSON, N.J.: The UDC: its future; HAARALA, A.-R.: FID pre-conference seminar on computer applications of the UDC; LOTH, K. u. H. FUNK: Subject search on ETHICS on the basis of the UDC; KURHULA, P.: Use and usability of the UDC in classification practice and online retrieval; RINNE, B.: HELECON system: economics databases; NAKAMURA, Y. u. T. ISHIKAWA: Expert systems for automatic UDC number assignment; RIESTHUIS, G.J.A. u. S. BLIEDUNG: Thesaurification of UDC: preliminary report

Editor

Gilchrist, A.; Strachan, D.

0.003065327 = product of:
  0.009195981 = sum of:
    0.009195981 = weight(_text_:a in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009195981 = score(doc=1155,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A model system, the Dewey Online Retrieval System (DORS), was implemented as an interface to an online catalog for the purpose of experimenting with classification-based search strategies and generally seeking further understanding of the role of traditional classifications in automated information retrieval. Specifications for a classification retrieval interface were enumerated and rationalized and the system was developed in accordance with them. The feature that particularly distinguishes the system and enables it to meet its stated specifications is an automatically generated chain index

Type

a

0.003065327 = product of:
  0.009195981 = sum of:
    0.009195981 = weight(_text_:a in 8865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009195981 = score(doc=8865,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 8865, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8865)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper discusses the newly developed USMARC Format for Classification Data. It reviews its potential uses within an online system and its development as one of the USMARC standards. It provides a summary of the fields in the format and considers the prospects for its implementation. The papaer describes an experiment currently being conducted at the Library of Congress to create USMARC classification records and use a classification database in classifying materials in the social sciences

Type

a

0.003065327 = product of:
  0.009195981 = sum of:
    0.009195981 = weight(_text_:a in 3153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009195981 = score(doc=3153,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 3153, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3153)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Library classification is constantly being influenced by multifaceted, multidimensional, and infinite growth of literature on one hand and the users needs on the other. Dewey pioneered in devising a scheme of classification for the documentation utility of the organised knowledge. Subsequent schemes of classification worked purely without any theoretical foundation, colon classification being the exception. With the emergence of computer technology the library classification is being metamorphised. This paper attempts to delve a state-of-the-art of library classification in the new computer age.

Type

a

0.00296799 = product of:
  0.00890397 = sum of:
    0.00890397 = weight(_text_:a in 5184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00890397 = score(doc=5184,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 5184, 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=5184)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

For generations, libraries have facilitated access to information sources by the development and use of a wide range of appropriate organizational processes. Within a Web-based demonstration prototype, we have applied several established library procedures, principles and practices to enhance access to selected Internet resources in science and technology. In seeking to manage these sources, we have established defined collection, adopted an established library classification scheme as an organizational framework, and sought to stimulate the features and functions of a physical library collection and conventional reference sourcees. This paper describes the key components of this prototype, reviews research which supports its approach, and profiles suggested enhancements which could further facilitate identification, access and use of significant Internet and WWW resources

Type

a

0.0029348272 = product of:
  0.0088044815 = sum of:
    0.0088044815 = weight(_text_:a in 4468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0088044815 = score(doc=4468,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.16900843 = fieldWeight in 4468, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4468)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The physical organisation of items on library shelves using any classification scheme is inevitable a compromise. The best efforts to achieve an arrangement that is helpful to users will be thwarted by the multifaceted nature of these items and the specific needs of the user and the library. Items on a particular subject will be scattered throughout the library building(s) across disciplines, by physical form, by frequency of use and whether and for how long they may be borrowed. Even thought he rich information content of multifaceted items may be represented in the notation, the items required by a user will be scattered across library shelves when the item is placed in a single relative location. This paper explores these issues uisng examples from a University Library classified using the DDC. The electronic context of the library OPAC can transcend the constraints imposed by the predominantly physical nature of library collections, yet the current use of classification schemes in on-line systems retains many of these limitations. Examples of such systems applying DDC on the WWW are discussed and compared with a system that seeks to use DDC in what is called view-based searching. The interface and the resulting browsing and searching capability of a view-based OPAC are described. Ways in which subject access to library collections can be improved and disciplinary scatter resolved by assigning multiple class number to items and exploiting the rich Dewey structure in a faceted form are discussed. It is suggested that the informative power of visual classificatory structures at the search interface will be beneficial to the broader learning experience of the user. The paper concludes that the application of classification schemes in electronic interfaces should not be bound by the the physical constraints that no longer apply in an electronic context but be exploited to provide a complete, flexible and individual interface as determined by the needs of each user

Type

a

0.0029264777 = product of:
  0.008779433 = sum of:
    0.008779433 = weight(_text_:a in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008779433 = score(doc=73,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 73, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=73)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper examines issues relating to the use of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) in a future development of view-based searching to Online Public Access Catalogues (OPAC). View-based searching systems, exercising the principles of fully faceted classification techniques for both bibliographic and corporate database retrieval applications, are now being applied to utilise Dewey concept hierarchies in a University OPAC. Issues of efficiency and effectiveness in the evolving organisation and classification of information within libraries are examined to explain why fully faceted classification schemes have yet to realise their full potential in libraries. The key to their application in OPACs lies in the use of faceted classification as pre-coordinated indexing and abandoning the single dimension relative ordering of books on shelves. The need to maintain a single relative physical position on a bookshelf is the major source of complexity in classification. Extensive latent benefits will be realised when systematic subject arrangements, providing alternative views onto OPACs, are coupled to view-based browser and search techniques. Time and effort will be saved, and effectiveness increased, as rapid access is provided to the most appropriate information to satisfy the needs of the user. A future for Dewey Classification divorced from its decimal notation is anticipated

Type

a

0.0029264777 = product of:
  0.008779433 = sum of:
    0.008779433 = weight(_text_:a in 5555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008779433 = score(doc=5555,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 5555, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5555)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

As librarians increasingly try to use their online catalogues to do what used to be done with their card shelflists, they are realizing that some catalogue sedigners and vendors have not paid enough attention to online shelf order classification access. Compares the call number searching abilities of 8 prominent, mature library systems: VTLS, Inlex, Innovative Interfaces, Inc., Data Research Associates (DRA), Geac Advance, Dynix, SIRSI, and NOTIS. Using 5 criteria that are important to cataloguers, each system was tested and rated for its suitability as an online shelflist. *** Special note from the authors: "[We've] become aware of a new version of SIRSI's Unicorn library system-- version 7.0 that changes our rating of SIRSI in a major way. We had rated SIRSI Unicorn a "C" in the paper, but now we would rate version 7.0 an "A". This is indeed a major change. Fortunately, we identified version numbers for each system in the article: we had tested version 6.1 of SIRSI. Thus, version 7.0 of SIRSI Unicorn, available in early 1995, has improved to the point that it meets every criteria used in the article for suitability as an online shelflist. The authors have evaluated version 7.0 with an "A" rating." ***

Type

a

0.0029264777 = product of:
  0.008779433 = sum of:
    0.008779433 = weight(_text_:a in 5568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008779433 = score(doc=5568,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 5568, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5568)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Ia McIlwaine, head of the Classification Research Group and editor of the UDC, noticed that the session's title invited crystal ball gazing, a talent she denied possessing. However, she admitted that she had asked the Classification Research Group to engage in such an exercise with her. The Group found, like the participants at the Allerton Institute were finding, that the contemplation of classification's future provided more questions than answers, but the questions were well worth considering. Her talk focused around a problem which originates in the difference between classifiers' uses and users' uses for classification systems. For users, who speak with the paraphrased self-confidence of Humpty Dumpty, a subject is a subject because they say it is. McIlwaine pointed out that this process of "saying" is at the heart of the users' needs which should be addressed by classification systems. Users use words to approach information systems and their associated classification systems. Classifiers need to recognize that this is the use to which their systems will be put. A body of users external to the classification process will make very different demands upon the system as compared to the users of the classification system who are also the creators of the system. Users desire information grouped for individual usefulness, and the groupings need to be according to words through which users can approach the system.

Type

a

0.0027093915 = product of:
  0.008128175 = sum of:
    0.008128175 = weight(_text_:a in 2384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008128175 = score(doc=2384,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2384, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2384)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Online displays of bibliographic records in call number order can serve various functions. A literature search showed no papers or books discussing this topic directly. Various displays from online catalogues available via the Internet were examined, as were displays sent to the author by colleagues. A number of the displays were uninformative to the extent that the identification of works associated with call numbers was difficult or impossible without follow-up searching of the individual bibliographic records. Other displays provided information where further searching of the database would not be required for most purposes. Displays noted ranged from displays with call numbers alone, with no bibliographic information, to records including main entry, title, statement of responsibility, place, publisher, and date. Suggestions of useful data elements to be included in displays of bibliographic records in call number order are made for the following functions: shelflisting, cataloguing, catalogue maintenance, reference, public searches, acquisition and collection development, and inventory control. Recommendations are made that the following data elements should be present in call number displays: entire call number as a sequencing element; main entry; entire title proper, and the date. Concern is expressed that the call number filing arrangement be that followed in traditional shelflists, and a suggestion is made that possible consensus on the placement of the data elements within a display be considered in the future

Type

a

0.0027093915 = product of:
  0.008128175 = sum of:
    0.008128175 = weight(_text_:a in 84) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008128175 = score(doc=84,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 84, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=84)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to determine some of the structural features of the classification schemes used in the directories (guides, channels) of search engines to organise information sources on the Internet. Ten search engines were examined at the main class level and the full hierarchies of a sample of three specific subjects were analysed in four of these engines, namely Excite, Infoseek, Lycos and Yahoo! It was found that there are major differences between the main classes of the search engines and those found in standard library schemes like Dewey, UDC and LCC. There are large gaps in subject coverage at main class level in the search engines and the general tendency is to use a topic-based approach in the formation of classes, rather than a discipline-based approach. The subdivision of the main classes is according to hierarchical tree structures, but a number of anomalies in this regard were identified. Another deviation from library classification theory is that various principles of division are employed to form classes at the same hierarchical level. In an analysis of citation orders many examples were found that conform to the principles followed in library classifications, but a number of inconsistencies in this regard were also noted

Type

a