Search (29 results, page 1 of 2)

0.07344712 = product of:
  0.11017068 = sum of:
    0.074728265 = weight(_text_:p in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074728265 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.47670212 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
    0.035442416 = product of:
      0.07088483 = sum of:
        0.07088483 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07088483 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15267645 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04359905 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

6. 5.2017 18:46:22

Source

International classification. 7(1980) no.1, p.2-5

0.031360924 = product of:
  0.047041383 = sum of:
    0.035227243 = weight(_text_:p in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035227243 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.22471954 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.011814139 = product of:
      0.023628278 = sum of:
        0.023628278 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023628278 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15267645 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04359905 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2763, 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=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The different points of views an knowledge representation and organization from various research communities reflect underlying philosophies and paradigms in these communities. This paper reviews differences and relations in knowledge representation and organization and generalizes four paradigms-integrative and disintegrative pragmatism and integrative and disintegrative epistemologism. Examples such as classification, XML schemas, and ontologies are compared based an how they specify concepts, build data models, and encode knowledge organization structures. 1. Introduction Knowledge representation (KR) is a term that several research communities use to refer to somewhat different aspects of the same research area. The artificial intelligence (AI) community considers KR as simply "something to do with writing down, in some language or communications medium, descriptions or pictures that correspond in some salient way to the world or a state of the world" (Duce & Ringland, 1988, p. 3). It emphasizes the ways in which knowledge can be encoded in a computer program (Bench-Capon, 1990). For the library and information science (LIS) community, KR is literally the synonym of knowledge organization, i.e., KR is referred to as the process of organizing knowledge into classifications, thesauri, or subject heading lists. KR has another meaning in LIS: it "encompasses every type and method of indexing, abstracting, cataloguing, classification, records management, bibliography and the creation of textual or bibliographic databases for information retrieval" (Anderson, 1996, p. 336). Adding the social dimension to knowledge organization, Hjoerland (1997) states that knowledge is a part of human activities and tied to the division of labor in society, which should be the primary organization of knowledge. Knowledge organization in LIS is secondary or derived, because knowledge is organized in learned institutions and publications. These different points of views an KR suggest that an essential difference in the understanding of KR between both AI and LIS lies in the source of representationwhether KR targets human activities or derivatives (knowledge produced) from human activities. This difference also decides their difference in purpose-in AI KR is mainly computer-application oriented or pragmatic and the result of representation is used to support decisions an human activities, while in LIS KR is conceptually oriented or abstract and the result of representation is used for access to derivatives from human activities.

Date

12. 9.2004 17:22:35

0.03060297 = product of:
  0.045904454 = sum of:
    0.03113678 = weight(_text_:p in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03113678 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
    0.014767674 = product of:
      0.029535348 = sum of:
        0.029535348 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029535348 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15267645 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04359905 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 21(1995) no.2, S.19-22

0.017613623 = product of:
  0.052840866 = sum of:
    0.052840866 = weight(_text_:p in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052840866 = score(doc=3651,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.33707932 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper, presented at the Ottawa Conference an the Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, in 1971, is one of Fairthorne's more perceptive works and deserves a wide audience, especially as it breaks new ground in classification theory. In discussing the notion of discourse, he makes a "distinction between what discourse mentions and what discourse is about" [emphasis added], considered as a "fundamental factor to the relativistic nature of bibliographic classification" (p. 360). A table of mathematical functions, for example, describes exactly something represented by a collection of digits, but, without a preface, this table does not fit into a broader context. Some indication of the author's intent ls needed to fit the table into a broader context. This intent may appear in a title, chapter heading, class number or some other aid. Discourse an and discourse about something "cannot be determined solely from what it mentions" (p. 361). Some kind of background is needed. Fairthorne further develops the theme that knowledge about a subject comes from previous knowledge, thus adding a temporal factor to classification. "Some extra textual criteria are needed" in order to classify (p. 362). For example, "documents that mention the same things, but are an different topics, will have different ancestors, in the sense of preceding documents to which they are linked by various bibliographic characteristics ... [and] ... they will have different descendants" (p. 363). The classifier has to distinguish between documents that "mention exactly the same thing" but are not about the same thing. The classifier does this by classifying "sets of documents that form their histories, their bibliographic world lines" (p. 363). The practice of citation is one method of performing the linking and presents a "fan" of documents connected by a chain of citations to past work. The fan is seen as the effect of generations of documents - each generation connected to the previous one, and all ancestral to the present document. Thus, there are levels in temporal structure-that is, antecedent and successor documents-and these require that documents be identified in relation to other documents. This gives a set of documents an "irrevocable order," a loose order which Fairthorne calls "bibliographic time," and which is "generated by the fact of continual growth" (p. 364). He does not consider "bibliographic time" to be an equivalent to physical time because bibliographic events, as part of communication, require delay. Sets of documents, as indicated above, rather than single works, are used in classification. While an event, a person, a unique feature of the environment, may create a class of one-such as the French Revolution, Napoleon, Niagara Falls-revolutions, emperors, and waterfalls are sets which, as sets, will subsume individuals and make normal classes.
The fan of past documents may be seen across time as a philosophical "wake," translated documents as a sideways relationship and future documents as another fan spreading forward from a given document (p. 365). The "overlap of reading histories can be used to detect common interests among readers," (p. 365) and readers may be classified accordingly. Finally, Fairthorne rejects the notion of a "general" classification, which he regards as a mirage, to be replaced by a citation-type network to identify classes. An interesting feature of his work lies in his linkage between old and new documents via a bibliographic method-citations, authors' names, imprints, style, and vocabulary - rather than topical (subject) terms. This is an indirect method of creating classes. The subject (aboutness) is conceived as a finite, common sharing of knowledge over time (past, present, and future) as opposed to the more common hierarchy of topics in an infinite schema assumed to be universally useful. Fairthorne, a mathematician by training, is a prolific writer an the foundations of classification and information. His professional career includes work with the Royal Engineers Chemical Warfare Section and the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE). He was the founder of the Computing Unit which became the RAE Mathematics Department.

0.016606282 = product of:
  0.049818847 = sum of:
    0.049818847 = weight(_text_:p in 3253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049818847 = score(doc=3253,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.31780142 = fieldWeight in 3253, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3253)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.014530497 = product of:
  0.04359149 = sum of:
    0.04359149 = weight(_text_:p in 5516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04359149 = score(doc=5516,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 5516, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5516)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Classification research. Proc. of the 2nd Int. Study Conf. ... , Elsinore, 14.-18.9.1964. Ed.: P. Atherton

0.014530497 = product of:
  0.04359149 = sum of:
    0.04359149 = weight(_text_:p in 3617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04359149 = score(doc=3617,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 3617, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3617)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Original in: International classification. 7(1980) no.1, p.2-5.

0.012454711 = product of:
  0.037364133 = sum of:
    0.037364133 = weight(_text_:p in 8863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037364133 = score(doc=8863,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 8863, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8863)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Based on the works of Aristotle, Ramon Lull, I. Kant and the experiences with relationships published in the works of S.R. Ranganathan, E.de Grolier, J. Mills, J.C. Costello, E. Wall, R. Pagès, A. Leroy, P. Braffort, M. Kervégant, J.C. Gardin and J. Farradane, categories and relationships were collected, analyzed, grouped and classified in a triadic way so that a scheme resulted by which 120 relationships could be defined and identified by their positions and their codes. The exercise was meant to create and supply a tool for the replacement of the non-significant relation symbol, the colon, in the UDC by a letter code which could express the actual relationship contained in a classificatory statement. Examples for their application illustrate different cases occuring

0.012454711 = product of:
  0.037364133 = sum of:
    0.037364133 = weight(_text_:p in 2687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037364133 = score(doc=2687,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 2687, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2687)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.010378927 = product of:
  0.03113678 = sum of:
    0.03113678 = weight(_text_:p in 5313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03113678 = score(doc=5313,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 5313, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5313)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.008303141 = product of:
  0.024909424 = sum of:
    0.024909424 = weight(_text_:p in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024909424 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.15890071 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

1. Introduction Theoretical context independent explanations of classification could enhance the universality of classification research and make knowledge about classification available to settings other than traditional libraries. There is a tremendous need for constructing classificatory structures in a range of settings many of which are far removed from the environment in which classification theory and research has been practiced in the last century and a half. The construction of classificatory structures an the Internet, intranets, and in knowledge management systems has received some attention lately. The question examined here is whether it is possible to create a single theory of classification that applies to the range of contexts in which classificatory structures are applied. The object of this paper is to question the assumption that bibliographic classification theory can resemble scientific theories. It is argued that the context of any classification influences the use and understanding of the classification to such a degree that the classification cannot be understood separate from its context. Furthermore, the development from being a novice classifier or classificationist to becoming an expert is explored. lt is assumed scientific theories must relate as much to the activity of novices as to the activity of experts and that scientific theories explain both what it is that novices do and what experts do. It is argued that expertise is achieved not through a correct application of a classification theory but through experiences and adjustment to a particular context and that the activities of novices are quite distinct from the activities of experts in that experts draws an the context of the situation and that novices do not. 2. Theory of Classification Langridge (1976) provides an account of the principles of constructing knowledge organization systems and the theoretical underpinnings of different approaches. He identifies four principles that have guided construction of knowledge organization systems: 1) ideological, 2) social purpose, 3) scientific, and 4) the disciplines. The ideological principle organizes knowledge according to an ideology that the knowledge organization system serves. Langridge gives the examples of "the Christian schemes of the Middle Ages and the Soviet scheme which substitutes for the Bible and Christianity the works of Marx and Lenin and the 'religion' of communism" (Langridge, 1976, p. 4-5).

0.008303141 = product of:
  0.024909424 = sum of:
    0.024909424 = weight(_text_:p in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024909424 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.15890071 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Special classifications have been somewhat neglected in KO compared to general classifications. The methodology of constructing special classifications is important, however, also for the methodology of constructing general classification schemes. The methodology of constructing special classifications can be regarded as one among about a dozen approaches to domain analysis. The methodology of (special) classification in LIS has been dominated by the rationalistic facet-analytic tradition, which, however, neglects the question of the empirical basis of classification. The empirical basis is much better grasped by, for example, bibliometric methods. Even the combination of rational and empirical methods is insufficient. This presentation will provide evidence for the necessity of historical and pragmatic methods for the methodology of classification and will point to the necessity of analyzing "paradigms". The presentation covers the methods of constructing classifications from Ranganathan to the design of ontologies in computer science and further to the recent "paradigm shift" in classification research. 1. Introduction Classification of a subject field is one among about eleven approaches to analyzing a domain that are specific for information science and in my opinion define the special competencies of information specialists (Hjoerland, 2002a). Classification and knowledge organization are commonly regarded as core qualifications of librarians and information specialists. Seen from this perspective one expects a firm methodological basis for the field. This paper tries to explore the state-of-the-art conceming the methodology of classification. 2. Classification: Science or non-science? As it is part of the curriculum at universities and subject in scientific journals and conferences like ISKO, orte expects classification/knowledge organization to be a scientific or scholarly activity and a scientific field. However, very often when information specialists classify or index documents and when they revise classification system, the methods seem to be rather ad hoc. Research libraries or scientific databases may employ people with adequate subject knowledge. When information scientists construct or evaluate systems, they very often elicit the knowledge from "experts" (Hjorland, 2002b, p. 260). Mostly no specific arguments are provided for the specific decisions in these processes.

0.007876093 = product of:
  0.023628278 = sum of:
    0.023628278 = product of:
      0.047256555 = sum of:
        0.047256555 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047256555 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15267645 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04359905 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 4.1997 21:10:19

0.0072652483 = product of:
  0.021795744 = sum of:
    0.021795744 = weight(_text_:p in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021795744 = score(doc=3631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.13903812 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Among the theorists in the field of subject analysis in the twentieth century, none has been more influential than S. R. Ranganathan (1892-1972) of India, a mathematician by training who turned to librarianship and made some of the most far-reaching contributions to the theory of librarianship in general and subject analysis in particular. Dissatisfied with both the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Universal Decimal Classification, Ranganathan set out to develop his own system. His Colon Classification was first published in 1933 and went through six editions; the seventh edition was in progress when Ranganathan died in 1972. In the course of developing the Colon Classification, Ranganathan formulated a body of classification theory which was published in numerous writings, of which the best known are Elements of Library Classification (1945; 3rd ed., 1962) and Prolegomena to Library Classification (1967). Among the principles Ranganathan established, the most powerful and influential are those relating to facet analysis. Ranganathan demonstrated that facet analysis (breaking down subjects into their component parts) and synthesis (recombining these parts to fit the documents) provide the most viable approach to representing the contents of documents. Although the idea and use of facets, though not always called by that name, have been present for a long time (for instance, in the Dewey Decimal Classification and Charles A. Cutter's Expansive Classification), Ranganathan was the person who systematized the ideas and established principles for them. For his Colon Classification, Ranganathan identified five fundamental categories: Personality (P), Material (M), Energy (E), Space (S) and Time (T) and the citation order PMEST based an the idea of decreasing concreteness.

0.006891581 = product of:
  0.020674743 = sum of:
    0.020674743 = product of:
      0.041349486 = sum of:
        0.041349486 = weight(_text_:22 in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041349486 = score(doc=7241,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15267645 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04359905 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7241, 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=7241)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Paper presented at conference on 'Local documents, a new classification scheme' at the Research Caucus of the Florida Library Association Annual Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 22 Apr 95

0.006891581 = product of:
  0.020674743 = sum of:
    0.020674743 = product of:
      0.041349486 = sum of:
        0.041349486 = weight(_text_:22 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041349486 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15267645 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04359905 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 166, 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=166)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.006891581 = product of:
  0.020674743 = sum of:
    0.020674743 = product of:
      0.041349486 = sum of:
        0.041349486 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041349486 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15267645 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04359905 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Pages

S.22-36

0.0059070694 = product of:
  0.017721208 = sum of:
    0.017721208 = product of:
      0.035442416 = sum of:
        0.035442416 = weight(_text_:22 in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035442416 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15267645 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04359905 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2464, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2464)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Library trends. 48(1999) no.1, S.22-47

0.0059070694 = product of:
  0.017721208 = sum of:
    0.017721208 = product of:
      0.035442416 = sum of:
        0.035442416 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035442416 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15267645 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04359905 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22.12.2007 17:22:31

0.0059070694 = product of:
  0.017721208 = sum of:
    0.017721208 = product of:
      0.035442416 = sum of:
        0.035442416 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035442416 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15267645 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04359905 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Argues that Beghtol's (2003) use of the terms "naive classification" and "professional classification" is valid because they are nominal definitions and that the distinction between these two types of classification points up the need for researchers in knowledge organization to broaden their scope beyond traditional classification systems intended for information retrieval. Argues that work by Beghtol (2003), Kwasnik (1999) and Bailey (1994) offer direction for the development of a classification of classifications based on the pragmatic dimensions of extant classification systems. Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society. In: Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag 2004. S.19-22. (Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9)