Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 2550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=2550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2550, 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=2550)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.010890487 = product of:
  0.021780973 = sum of:
    0.021780973 = product of:
      0.043561947 = sum of:
        0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 3349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043561947 = score(doc=3349,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 3349, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3349)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

I present a detailed philosophical study of three classification systems: Al-Farabi, Al-Ghazali and Ibn Khaldun. The primary aim of this study is to formulate the underlying philosophical basis of each classification and to relate this basis to certain principles contained in the Islamic revelation. I also give analytical treatment of the following questions: the major distinguishing features of each classification and the attitude of each thinker towards the philosophical and religious sciences and how they envisaged the distinction between the two fields.

0.010890487 = product of:
  0.021780973 = sum of:
    0.021780973 = product of:
      0.043561947 = sum of:
        0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043561947 = score(doc=689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 689, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 640, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article explores the representation of knowledge through the discursive practice of 'general' or 'universal' classification schemes. These classification schemes were constructed within a philosophical framework which viewed `man' as the central focus in the universe, which believed in progress through science and research, and which privileged written documentation over other forms. All major classification schemes are built on clearly identifiable systems of knowledge, and all classification schemes, as discursive formations, regulate the ways in which knowledge is made accessible. Of particular interest in determining how knowledge is represented in classification schemes are the following: - Main classes: classification theorists have attempted to 'discipline epistemology' in the sense of imposing main class structures with the view to simplifying access to knowledge in documents for library users. - Notational language: a number of classification theorists were particularly interested in the establishment of symbolic languages through notation. The article considers these aspects of classification theory in relation to: the Dewey Decimal Classification scheme; Otlet and La Fontaine's Universal Bibliographic Classification and the International Institute of Bibliography; Henry Evelyn Bliss's Bibliographic Classification; and S.R. Ranganathan's Colon Classification.

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=869,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 869, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

James Duff Brown was an influential and energetic librarian in Great Britain in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. His Subject Classification has characteristics that were unusual and idiosyncratic during his own time, but his work deserves recognition as one of the precursors of modern bibliographic classification systems. This article discusses a number of theories and classification practices that Brown developed. In particular, it investigates his views on the order of main classes, on the phenomenon of "concrete" subjects, and on the need for synthesized notations. It traces these ideas briefly into the future through the work of S. R. Ranganathan, the Classification Research Group, and the second edition of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification system. It concludes that Brown's work warrants further study for the light it may shed on current classification theory and practice.

0.0068065543 = product of:
  0.013613109 = sum of:
    0.013613109 = product of:
      0.027226217 = sum of:
        0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 2152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027226217 = score(doc=2152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 2152, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The decimal system is one system of a number of possible systems of ordering - and a very symbolic also. The ordering in ten chapters, themes, numbers, etc. you can find often in history. Indeed Dewey is not the genius-founder of decimal classification (against a number of authors)! For ordering and structuring separate schemes within a classification DDC creates a number of important negative solutions, e.g. in the main classes the 'lost' of physics and of medicine as special schemes: Nearly a catastrophe in the times of STM! And against an enormous tradition like Leibniz 1646 - 1716) et alii! Compare Bliss: The Bliss-Classification gives space for 6 numbers »sciences« in a context of 26 classes. Therefore the result in short: DDC (and UDC of course!) are »flowers« of the past, of the first decades of century 20! As a fact the Decimal Classification within the tradition of Melvil Dewey is not a final work: See the increasing number of newly constructed decimal classifications during the years 80 and 90 of the 20th century! Nevertheless DDC is a very great (problem and) solution in its development, internationality, reception - and edge-stone for many thinkers and librarians throughout the world - and an important example for modern translational work! Magda Heiner-Freiling has given to us a great stone for the edifice of Modern DDC: Requiescat in pace!