Search (77 results, page 2 of 4)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Ranganathan, S.R.: Library classification as a discipline (1957) 0.01 
    0.013399946 = product of:
  0.053599782 = sum of:
    0.053599782 = weight(_text_:library in 564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053599782 = score(doc=564,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.40671125 = fieldWeight in 564, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=564)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  2. Gopinath, M.A.: Paradigms, paradigm shifts and classification (1999) 0.01 
    0.013399946 = product of:
  0.053599782 = sum of:
    0.053599782 = weight(_text_:library in 6152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053599782 = score(doc=6152,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.40671125 = fieldWeight in 6152, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6152)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Library science with a slant to documentation and information studies. 36(1999) no.2, S.73-77
  3. Araghi, G.F.: ¬A new scheme for library classification (2004) 0.01 
    0.013399946 = product of:
  0.053599782 = sum of:
    0.053599782 = weight(_text_:library in 5659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053599782 = score(doc=5659,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.40671125 = fieldWeight in 5659, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5659)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This proposed new classification scheme is based on two main elements: hierarchism and binary theory. Hence, it is called Universal Binary Classification (UBC). Some advantages of this classification are highlighted including are subject heading development, construction of a thesaurus and all terms with meaningful features arranged in tabular form that can help researchers, through a semantic process, to find what they need. This classification scheme is fully consistent with the classification of knowledge. The classification of knowledge is also based on hierarchism and binary principle. Finally, a survey on randomly selected books in McLennan Library of McGill University is presented to compare the codes of this new classification with the currently employed Library of Congress Classification (LCC) numbers in the discipline of Library and Information Sciences.
  4. Gnoli, C.: Naturalism vs pragmatism in knowledge organization (2004) 0.01 
    0.012924549 = product of:
  0.051698197 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 2663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=2663,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 2663, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2663)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Several authors remark that categories used in languages, including indexing ones, are affected by cultural biases, and do not reflect reality in an objective way. Hence knowledge organization would essentially be determined by pragmatic factors. However, human categories are connected with the structure of reality through biological bonds, and this allows for a naturalistic approach too. Naturalism has been adopted by Farradane in proposing relational categories, and by Dahlberg and the CRG in applying the theory of integrative levels to general classification schemes. The latter is especially relevant for possible developments in making the structure of schemes independent from disciplines, and in applying it to digital information retrieval.
  5. Gopinath, M.A.; Prasad, K.N.: Compatibility of the principles for design of thesaurus and classification scheme (1976) 0.01 
    0.011485667 = product of:
  0.045942668 = sum of:
    0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045942668 = score(doc=2943,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Library science with a slant to documentation. 13(1976) no.2, S.56-66
  6. Austin, D.: Citation order and linguistic structure (1976) 0.01 
    0.011485667 = product of:
  0.045942668 = sum of:
    0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 2804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045942668 = score(doc=2804,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 2804, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2804)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Imprint
    Sydney : Library Association of Australia
  7. Mills, J.: Faceted classification and logical division in information retrieval (2004) 0.01 
    0.011485667 = product of:
  0.045942668 = sum of:
    0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045942668 = score(doc=831,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 831, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=831)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The main object of the paper is to demonstrate in detail the role of classification in information retrieval (IR) and the design of classificatory structures by the application of logical division to all forms of the content of records, subject and imaginative. The natural product of such division is a faceted classification. The latter is seen not as a particular kind of library classification but the only viable form enabling the locating and relating of information to be optimally predictable. A detailed exposition of the practical steps in facet analysis is given, drawing on the experience of the new Bliss Classification (BC2). The continued existence of the library as a highly organized information store is assumed. But, it is argued, it must acknowledge the relevance of the revolution in library classification that has taken place. It considers also how alphabetically arranged subject indexes may utilize controlled use of categorical (generically inclusive) and syntactic relations to produce similarly predictable locating and relating systems for IR.
    Source
    Library trends. 52(2004) no.3, S.515-540
  8. Bury, S.: Comparison of classification schedules for libraries (1980) 0.01 
    0.010828791 = product of:
  0.043315165 = sum of:
    0.043315165 = weight(_text_:library in 1603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043315165 = score(doc=1603,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 1603, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1603)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Discusses the basic criteria for comparison of classification for libraries. Identifies a set of intellectual criteria, derived from the general theory of library classification as expounded by Dewey, Bliss, and Ranganathan. Compares LC, DC, and BC in relation criteria namely - order, university, hospitality, adaptability, terminology, relationship, synthesis, notational features - simplicity, brevity, expressiveness, specifity, synonymity, flexibility, correlation, case of use, revision and practical use. Highlights the value of comparative studies among classification schemes
    Source
    Library science with a slant to documentation. 17(1980), S.73-82
  9. Olson, H.A.: ¬The ubiquitous hierarchy : an army to overcome the threat of a mob (2004) 0.01 
    0.010828791 = product of:
  0.043315165 = sum of:
    0.043315165 = weight(_text_:library in 833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043315165 = score(doc=833,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 833, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=833)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This article explores the connections between Melvil Dewey and Hegelianism and Charles Cutter and the Scottish Common Sense philosophers. It traces the practice of hierarchy from these philosophical influences to Dewey and Cutter and their legacy to today's Dewey Decimal Classification and Library of Congress Subject Headings. The ubiquity of hierarchy is linked to Dewey's and Cutter's metaphor of organizing the mob of information into an orderly army using the tool of logic.
    Source
    Library trends. 52(2004) no.3, S.604-616
  10. Adler, M.; Harper, L.M.: Race and ethnicity in classification systems : teaching knowledge organization from a social justice perspective (2018) 0.01 
    0.010828791 = product of:
  0.043315165 = sum of:
    0.043315165 = weight(_text_:library in 5518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043315165 = score(doc=5518,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 5518, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5518)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Race and Ethnicity in Library and Information Science: An Update'.
    Source
    Library trends. 67(2018) no.1, S.52-73
  11. Kublik, A.; Clevette, V.; Ward, D.; Olson, H.A.: Adapting dominant classifications to particular contexts (2003) 0.01 
    0.010464822 = product of:
  0.041859288 = sum of:
    0.041859288 = product of:
      0.083718576 = sum of:
        0.083718576 = weight(_text_:project in 5516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083718576 = score(doc=5516,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.39571697 = fieldWeight in 5516, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5516)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper addresses the process of adapting to a particular culture or context a classification that has grown out of western culture to become a global standard. The authors use a project that adapts DDC for use in a feminist/women's issues context to demonstrate an approach that works. The project is particularly useful as an interdisciplinary example. Discussion consists of four parts: (1) definition of the problem indicating the need for adaptation and efforts to date; (2) description of the methodology developed for creating an expansion; (3) description of the interface developed for actually doing the work, with its potential for a distributed group to work on it together (could even be internationally distributed); and (4) generalization of how the methodology could be used for particular contexts by country, ethnicity, perspective or other defining factors.
  12. Foskett, D.J.: Systems theory and its relevance to documentary classification (2017) 0.01 
    0.01018615 = product of:
  0.0407446 = sum of:
    0.0407446 = product of:
      0.0814892 = sum of:
        0.0814892 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0814892 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    6. 5.2017 18:46:22
  13. Satija, M.P.: Library classification : an essay in terminology (2000) 0.01 
    0.009475192 = product of:
  0.03790077 = sum of:
    0.03790077 = weight(_text_:library in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03790077 = score(doc=6091,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Arguing that an established technical terminology is crucial to the development of a discipline, and that classification terminology is neither well settled nor widely used by its exponents, this paper provides an explanation of some of the concepts generally accepted by classification theorists. In particular, the elaborate terminology generated by S.R. Ranganathan is examined. Definitions are provided for numerous concepts, including "classification"; "characteristics" and "attributes"; the genus-species relationship; the types of classes (canonical, systems, special, and environmental main classes); the kinds of subject (basic, compound, complex); as well as concepts such as facets, isolates, arrays, and chains. Comparisons between different classification systems, specifically the Dewey Decimal Classification, Colon Classification, and Library of Congress Classification, are also made
  14. Donovan, J.M.: Patron expectations about collocation : measuring the difference between the psychologically real and the really real (1991) 0.01 
    0.009475192 = product of:
  0.03790077 = sum of:
    0.03790077 = weight(_text_:library in 510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03790077 = score(doc=510,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 510, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=510)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Library patrons have innate expectations about how documents should be arranged. Useful classification schemes are those which conform to these expectations and are thereby psychologically comfortable. All schemes necessarily deviate from these expectations, but not to the same degree. The greater the divergence from this mental standard with a scheme, the greater the psychological discomfort the patron will experience and the less useful the patron will find it. Using as an example the discipline of anthropology, this article develops a measure of the deviation of library classifications from collocation in mental space
  15. Star, S.L.: Grounded classification : grounded theory and faceted classification (1998) 0.01 
    0.009475192 = product of:
  0.03790077 = sum of:
    0.03790077 = weight(_text_:library in 851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03790077 = score(doc=851,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 851, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=851)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    This article compares the qualitative method of grounded theory (GT) with Ranganathan's construction of faceted classifications (FC) in library and information science. Both struggle with a core problem-i.e., the representation of vernacular words and processes, empirically discovered, which will, although ethnographically faithful, be powerful beyond the single instance or case study. The article compares Glaser and Strauss's (1967) work with that of Ranganathan(1950).
    Source
    Library trends. 47(1998) no.2, S.218-232
  16. Gnoli, C.: Progress in synthetic classification : towards unique definition of concepts (2007) 0.01 
    0.008720686 = product of:
  0.034882743 = sum of:
    0.034882743 = product of:
      0.069765486 = sum of:
        0.069765486 = weight(_text_:project in 2527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069765486 = score(doc=2527,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.32976416 = fieldWeight in 2527, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2527)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The evolution of bibliographic classification schemes, from the end of the 19th century to our time, shows a trend of increasing possibilities to combine concepts in a classmark. While the early schemes, like DDC and LCC, were largely enumerative, more and more synthetic devices have appeared with common auxiliaries, facets, and phase relationships. The last editions of UDC and the UDC-derived FATKS project follow this evolution, by introducing more specific phase relationships and more common auxiliaries, like those for general properties and processes. This agrees with the Farradane's principle that each concept should have a place of unique definition, instead of being re-notated in each context where it occurs. This evolution appears to be unfinished, as even in most synthetic schemes many concepts have a different notation according to the disciplinary main classes where they occur. To overcome this limitation, main classes should be defined in terms of phenomena rather than disciplines: the Integrative Level Classification (ILC) research project is currently exploring this possibility. Examples with UDC, FATKS, and ILC notations are discussed.
  17. Adler, M.A.: Disciplining knowledge at the Library of Congress (2012) 0.01 
    0.008289068 = product of:
  0.033156272 = sum of:
    0.033156272 = weight(_text_:library in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033156272 = score(doc=423,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 423, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=423)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The Library of Congress is a federal institution that occupies a critical space where medical, social science, political, literary, and other discourses are collected, arranged, and disseminated to Congress and the public. LC plays a vital part in discipline creation and maintenance, as it actively reproduces specific discourses, while silencing others, such as those from the humanities, social sciences, and the general public. Alternatively, social tagging seems to disregard conventions of disciplinarity and allows much more diversity of representations. Tagging may provide important insight for organizing materials in research libraries, as choices between single disciplines are no longer necessary and voices from various fields and audiences can name resources using their own terms, whether they prefer medical/technical jargon or everyday words. As the academy moves more toward interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary studies and aims to find the intersections across political, social, scientific, and cultural phenomena, the implications and effects of library organization based on classes and subjects needs to be interrogated.
  18. Cordeiro, M.I.; Slavic, A.: Data models for knowledge organization tools : evolution and perspectives (2003) 0.01 
    0.008121594 = product of:
  0.032486375 = sum of:
    0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032486375 = score(doc=2632,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 2632, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2632)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper focuses on the need for knowledge organization (KO) tools, such as library classifications, thesauri and subject heading systems, to be fully disclosed and available in the open network environment. The authors look at the place and value of traditional library knowledge organization tools in relation to the technical environment and expectations of the Semantic Web. Future requirements in this context are explored, stressing the need for KO systems to support semantic interoperability. In order to be fully shareable KO tools need to be reframed and reshaped in terms of conceptual and data models. The authors suggest that some useful approaches to this already exist in methodological and technical developments within the fields of ontology modelling and lexicographic and terminological data interchange.
  19. Curras, E.: Ranganathan's classification theories under the systems science postulates (1992) 0.01 
    0.0076571116 = product of:
  0.030628446 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 6993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=6993,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 6993, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6993)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of library and information science. 17(1992) no.1, S.45-65
  20. Hurt, C.D.: Classification and subject analysis : looking to the future at a distance (1997) 0.01 
    0.0076571116 = product of:
  0.030628446 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 6929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=6929,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 6929, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6929)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Classic classification schemes are uni-dimensional, with few exceptions. One of the challenges of distance education and new learning strategies is that the proliferation of course work defies the traditional categorization. The rigidity of most present classification schemes does not mesh well with the burgeoning fluidity of the academic environment. One solution is a return to a largely forgotten area of study - classification theory. Some suggestions for exploration are nonmonotonic logic systems, neural network models, and non-library models.

Authors

Years

Themes