-
Bliss, H.E.: ¬A bibliographic classification : principles and definitions (1985)
0.49
0.4919159 = product of:
0.7652025 = sum of:
0.024005229 = weight(_text_:subject in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024005229 = score(doc=3621,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.22353725 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
0.0659319 = weight(_text_:classification in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0659319 = score(doc=3621,freq=48.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.6895092 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
48.0 = termFreq=48.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
0.01899904 = product of:
0.03799808 = sum of:
0.03799808 = weight(_text_:schemes in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03799808 = score(doc=3621,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.2364941 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.11260712 = product of:
0.22521424 = sum of:
0.22521424 = weight(_text_:bliss in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.22521424 = score(doc=3621,freq=22.0), product of:
0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
1.0485414 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.08170141 = weight(_text_:henry in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08170141 = score(doc=3621,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23560001 = queryWeight, product of:
7.84674 = idf(docFreq=46, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.34678018 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.84674 = idf(docFreq=46, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
0.107215635 = weight(_text_:evelyn in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.107215635 = score(doc=3621,freq=2.0), product of:
0.26989174 = queryWeight, product of:
8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.39725423 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
0.22521424 = weight(_text_:bliss in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.22521424 = score(doc=3621,freq=22.0), product of:
0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
1.0485414 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
0.06359599 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06359599 = score(doc=3621,freq=20.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.54406947 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
0.0659319 = weight(_text_:classification in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0659319 = score(doc=3621,freq=48.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.6895092 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
48.0 = termFreq=48.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
0.64285713 = coord(9/14)
- Abstract
- Henry Evelyn Bliss (1870-1955) devoted several decades of his life to the study of classification and the development of the Bibliographic Classification scheme while serving as a librarian in the College of the City of New York. In the course of the development of the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss developed a body of classification theory published in a number of articles and books, among which the best known are The Organization of Knowledge and the System of the Sciences (1929), Organization of Knowledge in Libraries and the Subject Approach to Books (1933; 2nd ed., 1939), and the lengthy preface to A Bibliographic Classification (Volumes 1-2, 1940; 2nd ed., 1952). In developing the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss carefully established its philosophical and theoretical basis, more so than was attempted by the makers of other classification schemes, with the possible exception of S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.) and his Colon Classification. The basic principles established by Bliss for the Bibliographic Classification are: consensus, collocation of related subjects, subordination of special to general and gradation in specialty, and the relativity of classes and of classification (hence alternative location and alternative treatment). In the preface to the schedules of A Bibliographic Classification, Bliss spells out the general principles of classification as weIl as principles specifically related to his scheme. The first volume of the schedules appeared in 1940. In 1952, he issued a second edition of the volume with a rewritten preface, from which the following excerpt is taken, and with the addition of a "Concise Synopsis," which is also included here to illustrate the principles of classificatory structure. In the excerpt reprinted below, Bliss discusses the correlation between classes, concepts, and terms, as weIl as the hierarchical structure basic to his classification scheme. In his discussion of cross-classification, Bliss recognizes the "polydimensional" nature of classification and the difficulties inherent in the two-dimensional approach which is characteristic of linear classification. This is one of the earliest works in which the multidimensional nature of classification is recognized. The Bibliographic Classification did not meet with great success in the United States because the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Library of Congress Classification were already weIl ensconced in American libraries by then. Nonetheless, it attracted considerable attention in the British Commonwealth and elsewhere in the world. A committee was formed in Britain which later became the Bliss Classification Association. A faceted edition of the scheme has been in preparation under the direction of J. Mills and V. Broughton. Several parts of this new edition, entitled Bliss Bibliographic Classification, have been published.
- Footnote
- Original in: Bliss, H.E.: A bibliographic classification extended by systematic auxuliary schedules for composite specification and notation. vols 1-2. 2nd ed. New York: Wilson 1952. S.3-11.
- Source
- Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al
-
Broughton, V.: Faceted classification as a basis for knowledge organization in a digital environment : the Bliss Bibliographic Classification as a model for vocabulary management and the creation of multi-dimensional knowledge structures (2001)
0.13
0.13374111 = product of:
0.3120626 = sum of:
0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021217827 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 5895, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5895)
0.03761707 = weight(_text_:classification in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03761707 = score(doc=5895,freq=10.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.39339557 = fieldWeight in 5895, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5895)
0.060019795 = product of:
0.12003959 = sum of:
0.12003959 = weight(_text_:bliss in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12003959 = score(doc=5895,freq=4.0), product of:
0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5588744 = fieldWeight in 5895, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5895)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.12003959 = weight(_text_:bliss in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12003959 = score(doc=5895,freq=4.0), product of:
0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5588744 = fieldWeight in 5895, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5895)
0.035551235 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035551235 = score(doc=5895,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 5895, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5895)
0.03761707 = weight(_text_:classification in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03761707 = score(doc=5895,freq=10.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.39339557 = fieldWeight in 5895, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5895)
0.42857143 = coord(6/14)
- Abstract
- Broughton is one of the key people working on the second edition of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (BC2). Her article has a brief, informative history of facets, then discusses semantic vs. syntactic relationships, standard facets used by Ranganathan and the Classification Research Group, facet analysis and citation order, and how to build subject indexes out of faceted classifications, all with occasional reference to digital environments and hypertext, but never with any specifics. It concludes by saying of faceted classification that the "capacity which it has to create highly sophisticated structures for the accommodation of complex objects suggests that it is worth investigation as an organizational tool for digital materials, and that the results of such investigation would be knowledge structures of unparalleled utility and elegance." How to build them is left to the reader, but this article provides an excellent starting point. It includes an example that shows how general concepts can be applied to a small set of documents and subjects, and how terms can be adapted to suit the material and users
-
Ranganathan, S.R.: Facet analysis: fundamental categories (1985)
0.13
0.12987468 = product of:
0.25974935 = sum of:
0.039295964 = weight(_text_:subject in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039295964 = score(doc=3631,freq=14.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.36592492 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
0.048553713 = weight(_text_:classification in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048553713 = score(doc=3631,freq=34.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5077699 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
34.0 = termFreq=34.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
0.01662416 = product of:
0.03324832 = sum of:
0.03324832 = weight(_text_:schemes in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03324832 = score(doc=3631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.20693234 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.029708283 = product of:
0.059416566 = sum of:
0.059416566 = weight(_text_:bliss in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059416566 = score(doc=3631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.27662873 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.059416566 = weight(_text_:bliss in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059416566 = score(doc=3631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.27662873 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
0.017596964 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017596964 = score(doc=3631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.15054363 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
0.048553713 = weight(_text_:classification in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048553713 = score(doc=3631,freq=34.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5077699 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
34.0 = termFreq=34.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
0.5 = coord(7/14)
- 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.
The Colon Classification has not been widely adopted; however, the theory of facet analysis and synthesis Ranganathan developed has proved to be most influential. Although many theorists of subject analysis do not totally agree with his fundamental categories or citation order, Ranganathan's concept of facet analysis and synthesis has provided a viable method and a framework for approaching subject analysis and has become the foundation of subject analysis in the twentieth century. In this sense, his theory laid the groundwork for later investigations and inquiries into the nature of subject and classificatory categories and citation order. His influence is felt in all modern classification schemes and indexing systems. This is attested to by the citations to his ideas and works in numerous papers included in this collection and by the fact that other modern classification systems such as the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Bliss Bibliographic Classification have become increasingly faceted in recent editions. The following chapter from Elements of Library Classification represents one of Ranganathan's many expositions of facet analysis and fundamental categories. It is chosen because of its clarity of expression and comprehensibility (many readers find the majority of his writings difficult to understand).
- Footnote
- Original in: Ranganathan, S.R.: Elements of library classification. 3rd ed. Bombay: Asia Publishing House 1962. S.82-89
- Source
- Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al
-
Broughton, V.: Faceted classification as a basis for knowledge organization in a digital environment : the Bliss Bibliographic Classification as a model for vocabulary management and the creation of multidimensional knowledge structures (2003)
0.13
0.12565118 = product of:
0.2931861 = sum of:
0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03496567 = score(doc=2631,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
0.040303055 = product of:
0.08060611 = sum of:
0.08060611 = weight(_text_:schemes in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08060611 = score(doc=2631,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5016798 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.050928485 = product of:
0.10185697 = sum of:
0.10185697 = weight(_text_:bliss in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10185697 = score(doc=2631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.10185697 = weight(_text_:bliss in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10185697 = score(doc=2631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
0.030166224 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030166224 = score(doc=2631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03496567 = score(doc=2631,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
0.42857143 = coord(6/14)
- Abstract
- The paper examines the way in which classification schemes can be applied to the organization of digital resources. The case is argued for the particular suitability of schemes based an faceted principles for the organization of complex digital objects. Details are given of a co-operative project between the School of Library Archive & Information Studies, University College London, and the United Kingdom Higher Education gateways Arts and Humanities Data Service and Humbul, in which a faceted knowledge structure is being developed for the indexing and display of digital materials within a new combined humanities portal.
-
Bury, S.: Comparison of classification schedules for libraries (1980)
0.12
0.12477797 = product of:
0.34937832 = sum of:
0.053833168 = weight(_text_:classification in 1603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053833168 = score(doc=1603,freq=8.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5629819 = fieldWeight in 1603, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1603)
0.03799808 = product of:
0.07599616 = sum of:
0.07599616 = weight(_text_:schemes in 1603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07599616 = score(doc=1603,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.4729882 = fieldWeight in 1603, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1603)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.06790464 = product of:
0.13580929 = sum of:
0.13580929 = weight(_text_:bliss in 1603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13580929 = score(doc=1603,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.63229424 = fieldWeight in 1603, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1603)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.13580929 = weight(_text_:bliss in 1603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13580929 = score(doc=1603,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.63229424 = fieldWeight in 1603, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1603)
0.053833168 = weight(_text_:classification in 1603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053833168 = score(doc=1603,freq=8.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5629819 = fieldWeight in 1603, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1603)
0.35714287 = coord(5/14)
- 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
-
Campbell, G.: ¬A queer eye for the faceted guy : how a universal classification principle can be applied to a distinct subculture (2004)
0.11
0.10588712 = product of:
0.21177424 = sum of:
0.016974261 = weight(_text_:subject in 2639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016974261 = score(doc=2639,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.15806471 = fieldWeight in 2639, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2639)
0.026916584 = weight(_text_:classification in 2639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026916584 = score(doc=2639,freq=8.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 2639, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2639)
0.01899904 = product of:
0.03799808 = sum of:
0.03799808 = weight(_text_:schemes in 2639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03799808 = score(doc=2639,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.2364941 = fieldWeight in 2639, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2639)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.03395232 = product of:
0.06790464 = sum of:
0.06790464 = weight(_text_:bliss in 2639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06790464 = score(doc=2639,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.31614712 = fieldWeight in 2639, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2639)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.06790464 = weight(_text_:bliss in 2639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06790464 = score(doc=2639,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.31614712 = fieldWeight in 2639, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2639)
0.020110816 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020110816 = score(doc=2639,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.17204987 = fieldWeight in 2639, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2639)
0.026916584 = weight(_text_:classification in 2639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026916584 = score(doc=2639,freq=8.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 2639, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2639)
0.5 = coord(7/14)
- Content
- 1. Introduction The title of this paper is taken from a TV show which has gained considerable popularity in North America: A Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, in which a group of gay men subject a helpless straight male to a complete fashion makeover. In facet analysis, this would probably be seen as an "operation upon" something, and the Bliss Bibliographic Classification would place it roughly two-thirds of the way along its facet order, after "types" and "materials," but before "space" and "time." But the link between gay communities and facet analysis extends beyond the facetious title. As Web-based information resources for gay and lesbian users continue to grow, Web sites that cater to, or at least refrain from discriminating against gay and lesbian users are faced with a daunting challenge when trying to organize these diverse resources in a way that facilitates congenial browsing. And principles of faceted classification, with their emphasis an clear and consistent principles of subdivision and their care in defining the order of subdivisions, offer an important opportunity to use time-honoured classification principles to serve the growing needs of these communities. If faceted organization schemes are to work, however, we need to know more about gay and lesbian users, and how they categorize themselves and their information sources. This paper presents the results of an effort to learn more.
-
Mills, J.: Faceted classification and logical division in information retrieval (2004)
0.10
0.10274685 = product of:
0.28769118 = sum of:
0.036007844 = weight(_text_:subject in 831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036007844 = score(doc=831,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 831, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=831)
0.049448926 = weight(_text_:classification in 831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049448926 = score(doc=831,freq=12.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5171319 = fieldWeight in 831, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=831)
0.050928485 = product of:
0.10185697 = sum of:
0.10185697 = weight(_text_:bliss in 831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10185697 = score(doc=831,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 831, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=831)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.10185697 = weight(_text_:bliss in 831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10185697 = score(doc=831,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 831, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=831)
0.049448926 = weight(_text_:classification in 831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049448926 = score(doc=831,freq=12.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5171319 = fieldWeight in 831, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=831)
0.35714287 = coord(5/14)
- 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.
-
Connaway, L.S.; Sievert, M.C.: Comparison of three classification systems for information on health insurance (1996)
0.10
0.10096708 = product of:
0.2827078 = sum of:
0.048010457 = weight(_text_:subject in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048010457 = score(doc=7242,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.4470745 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
0.071214594 = weight(_text_:classification in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.071214594 = score(doc=7242,freq=14.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.7447551 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
0.07599616 = product of:
0.15199232 = sum of:
0.15199232 = weight(_text_:schemes in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15199232 = score(doc=7242,freq=8.0), product of:
0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.9459764 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071214594 = weight(_text_:classification in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.071214594 = score(doc=7242,freq=14.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.7447551 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
0.016272005 = product of:
0.03254401 = sum of:
0.03254401 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03254401 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.35714287 = coord(5/14)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a comparative study of 3 classification schemes: LCC, DDC and NLM Classification to determine their effectiveness in classifying materials on health insurance. Examined 2 hypotheses: that there would be no differences in the scatter of the 3 classification schemes; and that there would be overlap between all 3 schemes but no difference in the classes into which the subject was placed. There was subject scatter in all 3 classification schemes and litlle overlap between the 3 systems
- Date
- 22. 4.1997 21:10:19
- Object
- NLM Classification
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 23(1996) no.2, S.89-104
-
Vukadin, A.; Slavic, A.: Challenges of facet analysis and concept placement in Universal Classifications : the example of architecture in UDC (2014)
0.10
0.100941665 = product of:
0.23553056 = sum of:
0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02018744 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
0.050928485 = product of:
0.10185697 = sum of:
0.10185697 = weight(_text_:bliss in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10185697 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.10185697 = weight(_text_:bliss in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10185697 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
0.030166224 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030166224 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02018744 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
0.0122040035 = product of:
0.024408007 = sum of:
0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024408007 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1428, 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=1428)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.42857143 = coord(6/14)
- Abstract
- The paper discusses the challenges of faceted vocabulary organization in universal classifications which treat the universe of knowledge as a coherent whole and in which the concepts and subjects in different disciplines are shared, related and combined. The authors illustrate the challenges of the facet analytical approach using, as an example, the revision of class 72 in UDC. The paper reports on the research undertaken in 2013 as preparation for the revision. This consisted of analysis of concept organization in the UDC schedules in comparison with the Art & Architecture Thesaurus and class W of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification. The paper illustrates how such research can contribute to a better understanding of the field and may lead to improvements in the facet structure of this segment of the UDC vocabulary.
- Source
- Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
-
Slavic, A.; Cordeiro, M.I.: Core requirements for automation of analytico-synthetic classifications (2004)
0.10
0.10066055 = product of:
0.28184953 = sum of:
0.049448926 = weight(_text_:classification in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049448926 = score(doc=2651,freq=12.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5171319 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
0.050928485 = product of:
0.10185697 = sum of:
0.10185697 = weight(_text_:bliss in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10185697 = score(doc=2651,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.10185697 = weight(_text_:bliss in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10185697 = score(doc=2651,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
0.030166224 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030166224 = score(doc=2651,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
0.049448926 = weight(_text_:classification in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049448926 = score(doc=2651,freq=12.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5171319 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
0.35714287 = coord(5/14)
- Abstract
- The paper analyses the importance of data presentation and modelling and its role in improving the management, use and exchange of analytico-synthetic classifications in automated systems. Inefficiencies, in this respect, hinder the automation of classification systems that offer the possibility of building compound index/search terms. The lack of machine readable data expressing the semantics and structure of a classification vocabulary has negative effects on information management and retrieval, thus restricting the potential of both automated systems and classifications themselves. The authors analysed the data representation structure of three general analytico-synthetic classification systems (BC2-Bliss Bibliographic Classification; BSO-Broad System of Ordering; UDC-Universal Decimal Classification) and put forward some core requirements for classification data representation
-
Olson, H.A.: Wind and rain and dark of night : classification in scientific discourse communities (2008)
0.09
0.085732274 = product of:
0.24005036 = sum of:
0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028549349 = score(doc=2270,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
0.050928485 = product of:
0.10185697 = sum of:
0.10185697 = weight(_text_:bliss in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10185697 = score(doc=2270,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.10185697 = weight(_text_:bliss in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10185697 = score(doc=2270,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
0.030166224 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030166224 = score(doc=2270,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028549349 = score(doc=2270,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
0.35714287 = coord(5/14)
- Content
- Classifications of natural phenomena demonstrate the applicability of discourse analysis in finding the importance of concepts such as warrant for categorization and classification. Temperature scales provide a body of official literature for close consideration. Official documents of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) reveal the reasoning behind choices affecting these standards. A more cursory scrutiny of the Saffir-Simpson Scale through scholarly publications and documentation from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (KIST) indicates the potential of this form of analysis. The same holds true for an examination of the definition of what is a planet as determined by the International Astronomical Union. As Sayers, Richardson, and Bliss have indicated, there seem to be principles and a reliance on context that bridge the differences between natural and artificial, scientific and bibliographic classifications.
-
Foskett, D.J.; Bury, S.: Concept organisation and universal classification schemes (1982)
0.07
0.07079503 = product of:
0.24778259 = sum of:
0.05092278 = weight(_text_:subject in 17) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05092278 = score(doc=17,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 17, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=17)
0.06993134 = weight(_text_:classification in 17) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06993134 = score(doc=17,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.731335 = fieldWeight in 17, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=17)
0.05699712 = product of:
0.11399424 = sum of:
0.11399424 = weight(_text_:schemes in 17) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11399424 = score(doc=17,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.7094823 = fieldWeight in 17, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=17)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.06993134 = weight(_text_:classification in 17) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06993134 = score(doc=17,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.731335 = fieldWeight in 17, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=17)
0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
- Source
- Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg
-
Ullah, A.; Khusro, S.; Ullah, I.: Bibliographic classification in the digital age : current trends & future directions (2017)
0.06
0.06495005 = product of:
0.22732517 = sum of:
0.057690408 = weight(_text_:classification in 5717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057690408 = score(doc=5717,freq=12.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.60332054 = fieldWeight in 5717, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5717)
0.03324832 = product of:
0.06649664 = sum of:
0.06649664 = weight(_text_:schemes in 5717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06649664 = score(doc=5717,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.41386467 = fieldWeight in 5717, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5717)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.07869602 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07869602 = score(doc=5717,freq=10.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.6732516 = fieldWeight in 5717, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5717)
0.057690408 = weight(_text_:classification in 5717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057690408 = score(doc=5717,freq=12.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.60332054 = fieldWeight in 5717, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5717)
0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
- Abstract
- Bibliographic classification is among the core activities of Library & Information Science that brings order and proper management to the holdings of a library. Compared to printed media, digital collections present numerous challenges regarding their preservation, curation, organization and resource discovery & access. Therefore, true native perspective is needed to be adopted for bibliographic classification in digital environments. In this research article, we have investigated and reported different approaches to bibliographic classification of digital collections. The article also contributes two evaluation frameworks that evaluate the existing classification schemes and systems. The article presents a bird's-eye view for researchers in reaching a generalized and holistic approach towards bibliographic classification research, where new research avenues have been identified.
-
Hurt, C.D.: Classification and subject analysis : looking to the future at a distance (1997)
0.06
0.062728494 = product of:
0.21954973 = sum of:
0.033948522 = weight(_text_:subject in 6929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033948522 = score(doc=6929,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 6929, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6929)
0.0659319 = weight(_text_:classification in 6929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0659319 = score(doc=6929,freq=12.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.6895092 = fieldWeight in 6929, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6929)
0.053737402 = product of:
0.107474804 = sum of:
0.107474804 = weight(_text_:schemes in 6929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.107474804 = score(doc=6929,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.66890633 = fieldWeight in 6929, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6929)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0659319 = weight(_text_:classification in 6929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0659319 = score(doc=6929,freq=12.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.6895092 = fieldWeight in 6929, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6929)
0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
- 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.
- Footnote
- Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Cataloging and classification: trends, transformations, teaching, and training."
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 24(1997) nos.1/2, S.97-112
-
Olson, H.A.: Cultural discourse of classification : indigeous alternatives to the tradition of Aristotle, Durkheim, and Foucault (2001)
0.06
0.0620288 = product of:
0.21710078 = sum of:
0.074478 = weight(_text_:classification in 1594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.074478 = score(doc=1594,freq=20.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.7788835 = fieldWeight in 1594, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1594)
0.03324832 = product of:
0.06649664 = sum of:
0.06649664 = weight(_text_:schemes in 1594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06649664 = score(doc=1594,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.41386467 = fieldWeight in 1594, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1594)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.074478 = weight(_text_:classification in 1594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.074478 = score(doc=1594,freq=20.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.7788835 = fieldWeight in 1594, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1594)
0.034896467 = product of:
0.069792934 = sum of:
0.069792934 = weight(_text_:texts in 1594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.069792934 = score(doc=1594,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.42399842 = fieldWeight in 1594, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1594)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
- Abstract
- The paper explores the cultural construction of classification by identifying fundamental characteristics of classification and examining how these fit with other cultures. Foucault's method of discourse analysis is applied to selected texts an classification in two areas. The first area is classification originated in the dominant Western culture. The second area is classifications from indigenous cultures. It is concluded that classification research needs to have an increasing awareness of the cultural construction of classification schemes and to work with alternatives to approaches of fundamental universal principles of classification.
- Source
- Advances in classification research, vol.10: proceedings of the 10th ASIS SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop. Ed.: Albrechtsen, H. u. J.E. Mai
-
Svenonius, E.: Ranganathan and classification science (1992)
0.06
0.058418572 = product of:
0.20446499 = sum of:
0.058800567 = weight(_text_:subject in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058800567 = score(doc=2654,freq=6.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5475522 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
0.053833168 = weight(_text_:classification in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053833168 = score(doc=2654,freq=8.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5629819 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
0.03799808 = product of:
0.07599616 = sum of:
0.07599616 = weight(_text_:schemes in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07599616 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.4729882 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.053833168 = weight(_text_:classification in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053833168 = score(doc=2654,freq=8.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5629819 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
- Abstract
- This article discusses some of Ranganathan's contributions to the productive, practical and theoretical aspects of classification science. These include: (1) a set of design criteria to guide the designing of schemes for knowledge / subject classification; (2) a conceptual framework for organizing the universe of subjects; and (3) an understanding of the general principles underlying subject disciplines and classificatory languages. It concludes that Ranganathan has contributed significantly to laying the foundations for a science of subject classification.
-
Furner, J.; Dunbar, A.W.: ¬The treatment of topics relating to people of mixed race in bibliographic classification schemes : a critical race-theoretic approach (2004)
0.06
0.057748508 = product of:
0.20211977 = sum of:
0.0526639 = weight(_text_:classification in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0526639 = score(doc=2640,freq=10.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.55075383 = fieldWeight in 2640, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2640)
0.047020227 = product of:
0.09404045 = sum of:
0.09404045 = weight(_text_:schemes in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09404045 = score(doc=2640,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.58529305 = fieldWeight in 2640, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2640)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04977173 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04977173 = score(doc=2640,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 2640, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2640)
0.0526639 = weight(_text_:classification in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0526639 = score(doc=2640,freq=10.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.55075383 = fieldWeight in 2640, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2640)
0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
- Abstract
- The classification of documents about topics relating to people of mixed race is problematic, partly because of the obscurity of racial categorization in general, and partly because of the limitations and inherent biases of bibliographic classification schemes designed primarily for usage in non-digital environments. Critical race theory is an approach that may prove useful in deterrnining how classification systems such as the Dewey Decimal Classification should most appropriately be stuctured.
-
Quinlan, E.; Rafferty, P.: Astronomy classification : towards a faceted classification scheme (2019)
0.06
0.056143455 = product of:
0.19650209 = sum of:
0.030006537 = weight(_text_:subject in 5313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030006537 = score(doc=5313,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 5313, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5313)
0.07137337 = weight(_text_:classification in 5313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07137337 = score(doc=5313,freq=36.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.7464156 = fieldWeight in 5313, product of:
6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
36.0 = termFreq=36.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5313)
0.0237488 = product of:
0.0474976 = sum of:
0.0474976 = weight(_text_:schemes in 5313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0474976 = score(doc=5313,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.2956176 = fieldWeight in 5313, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5313)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.07137337 = weight(_text_:classification in 5313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07137337 = score(doc=5313,freq=36.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.7464156 = fieldWeight in 5313, product of:
6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
36.0 = termFreq=36.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5313)
0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
- Abstract
- Astronomy classification is often overlooked in classification discourse. Its rarity and obscurity, especially within UK librarianship, suggests it is an underdeveloped strand of classification research and is possibly undervalued in modern librarianship. The purpose of this research is to investigate the suitability and practicalities of the discipline of astronomy adopting a subject-specific faceted classification scheme and to provide a provi-sional outline of a special faceted astronomy classification scheme. The research demonstrates that the application of universal schemes for astronomy classification had left the interdisciplinary subject ill catered for and outdated, making accurate classification difficult for specialist astronomy collections. A faceted approach to classification development is supported by two qualitative literature-based research methods: historical research into astronomy classification and an analytico-synthetic classification case study. The subsequent classification development is influenced through a pragmatic and scholarly-scientific approach and constructed by means of instruction from faceted classification guides by Vickery (1960) and Batley (2005), and faceted classification principles from Ranaganathan (1937). This research fills a gap within classification discourse on specialist interdisciplinary subjects, specifically within astronomy and demonstrates the best means for their classification. It provides a means of assessing further the value of faceted classification within astronomy librarianship.
-
McIlwaine, I.C.: Where have all the flowers gone? : An investigation into the fate of some special classification schemes (2003)
0.06
0.055654615 = product of:
0.15583292 = sum of:
0.016974261 = weight(_text_:subject in 2764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016974261 = score(doc=2764,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.15806471 = fieldWeight in 2764, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2764)
0.040374875 = weight(_text_:classification in 2764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040374875 = score(doc=2764,freq=18.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.4222364 = fieldWeight in 2764, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2764)
0.03799808 = product of:
0.07599616 = sum of:
0.07599616 = weight(_text_:schemes in 2764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07599616 = score(doc=2764,freq=8.0), product of:
0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.4729882 = fieldWeight in 2764, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2764)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.020110816 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020110816 = score(doc=2764,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.17204987 = fieldWeight in 2764, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2764)
0.040374875 = weight(_text_:classification in 2764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040374875 = score(doc=2764,freq=18.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.4222364 = fieldWeight in 2764, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2764)
0.35714287 = coord(5/14)
- Abstract
- Prior to the OPAC many institutions devised classifications to suit their special needs. Others expanded or altered general schemes to accommodate specific approaches. A driving force in the creation of these classifications was the Classification Research Group, celebrating its golden jubilee in 2002, whose work created a framework and body of principles that remain valid for the retrieval needs of today. The paper highlights some of these special schemes and highlights the fundamental principles which remain valid. 1. Introduction The distinction between a general and a special classification scheme is made frequently in the textbooks, but is one that it is sometimes difficult to draw. The Library of Congress classification could be described as the special classification par excellence. Normally, however, a special classification is taken to be one that is restricted to a specific subject, and quite often used in one specific context only, either a library or a bibliographic listing or for a specific purpose such as a search engine and it is in this sense that I propose to examine some of these schemes. Today, there is a widespread preference for searching an words as a supplement to the use of a standard system, usually the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). This is enhanced by the ability to search documents full-text in a computerized environment, a situation that did not exist 20 or 30 years ago. Today's situation is a great improvement in many ways, but it does depend upon the words used by the author and the searcher corresponding, and often presupposes the use of English. In libraries, the use of co-operative services and precatalogued records already provided with classification data has also spelt the demise of the special scheme. In many instances, the survival of a special classification depends upon its creaior and, with the passage of time, this becomes inevitably more precarious.
-
Hjoerland, B.: Facet analysis : the logical approach to knowledge organization (2013)
0.06
0.055603623 = product of:
0.19461267 = sum of:
0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03364573 = score(doc=2720,freq=8.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 2720, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2720)
0.042440403 = product of:
0.08488081 = sum of:
0.08488081 = weight(_text_:bliss in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08488081 = score(doc=2720,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.3951839 = fieldWeight in 2720, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2720)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.08488081 = weight(_text_:bliss in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08488081 = score(doc=2720,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.3951839 = fieldWeight in 2720, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2720)
0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03364573 = score(doc=2720,freq=8.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 2720, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2720)
0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
- Abstract
- The facet-analytic paradigm is probably the most distinct approach to knowledge organization within Library and Information Science, and in many ways it has dominated what has be termed "modern classification theory". It was mainly developed by S.R. Ranganathan and the British Classification Research Group, but it is mostly based on principles of logical division developed more than two millennia ago. Colon Classification (CC) and Bliss 2 (BC2) are among the most important systems developed on this theoretical basis, but it has also influenced the development of other systems, such as the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and is also applied in many websites. It still has a strong position in the field and it is the most explicit and "pure" theoretical approach to knowledge organization (KO) (but it is not by implication necessarily also the most important one). The strength of this approach is its logical principles and the way it provides structures in knowledge organization systems (KOS). The main weaknesses are (1) its lack of empirical basis and (2) its speculative ordering of knowledge without basis in the development or influence of theories and socio-historical studies. It seems to be based on the problematic assumption that relations between concepts are a priori and not established by the development of models, theories and laws.
