Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0029000505 = product of:
  0.005800101 = sum of:
    0.005800101 = product of:
      0.011600202 = sum of:
        0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 4940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011600202 = score(doc=4940,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 4940, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4940)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A detailed examination of the UDC's history, function and future prospects. Among topics discussed are: the early pioneering work of P. Otlet and H. LaFontaine; the development of Colon Classification; the 'UDC versus switching language' debate in the 1970s; the FID standard reference code project; and the recent scheme by Williamson and McIlwaine to restructure UDC completely, converting it into a Colon Classification and also creating a thesaurus drawn from the same classification. Comments that UDC, far from being a 'prehistoric monster', is becoming a sort of test laboratory for developing new and interesting documentation structures

Type

a

0.0025313715 = product of:
  0.005062743 = sum of:
    0.005062743 = product of:
      0.010125486 = sum of:
        0.010125486 = weight(_text_:a in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010125486 = score(doc=3621,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19066721 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 5800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=5800,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 5800, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5800)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan's theory of classification spans a number of works over a number of decades. And while he was devoted to solving many problems in the practice of librarianship, and is known as the father of library science in India (Garfield, 1984), his work in classification revolves around one central concern. His classification research addressed the problems that arose from introducing new ideas into a scheme for classification, while maintaining a meaningful hierarchical and systematically arranged order of classes. This is because hierarchical and systematically arranged classes are the defining characteristic of useful classification. To lose this order is to through the addition of new classes is to introduce confusion, if not chaos, and to move toward a useless classification - or at least one that requires complete revision. In the following chapter, I outline the stages, and the elements of those stages, in Ranganathan's thought on classification from 1926-1972, as well as posthumous work that continues his agenda. And while facets figure prominently in all of these stages; but for Ranganathan to achieve his goal, he must continually add to this central feature of his theory of classification. I will close this chapter with an outline of persistent problems that represent research fronts for the field. Chief among these are what to do about scheme change and the open question about the rigor of information modeling in light of semantic web developments.

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=833,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 833, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=833)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=3631,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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).

Source

Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al

Type

a

0.0011959607 = product of:
  0.0023919214 = sum of:
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047838427 = score(doc=3849,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Various fields, each with its own theories, techniques, and tools, are concerned with identifying and representing the conceptual structure of specific knowledge domains. This paper compares facet analysis, an analytic technique coming out of knowledge organization (especially as undertaken by members of the Classification Research Group (CRG)), with semantic frame analysis, an analytic technique coming out of lexical semantics (especially as undertaken by the developers of Frame-Net) The investigation addresses three questions: 1) how do CRG-style facet analysis and semantic frame analysis characterize the conceptual structures that they identify?; 2) how similar are the techniques they use?; and, 3) how similar are the conceptual structures they produce? Facet analysis is concerned with the logical categories underlying the terminology of an entire field, while semantic frame analysis is concerned with the participant-and-prop structure manifest in sentences about a type of situation or event. When their scope of application is similar, as, for example, in the areas of the performing arts or education, the resulting facets and semantic frame elements often bear striking resemblance, without being the same; facets are more often expressed as semantic types, while frame elements are more often expressed as roles.

Type

a

0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 1594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=1594,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 1594, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1594)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a