Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Geschichte der Klassifikationssysteme"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Green, R.: Facet analysis and semantic frames (2017) 0.02 
    0.0216128 = product of:
  0.0864512 = sum of:
    0.0864512 = weight(_text_:fields in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0864512 = score(doc=3849,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.27354267 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  2. Heuvel, C. van den: Multidimensional classifications : past and future conceptualizations and visualizations (2012) 0.02 
    0.015133139 = product of:
  0.060532555 = sum of:
    0.060532555 = weight(_text_:22 in 632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060532555 = score(doc=632,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 632, 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=632)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:31:25
  3. Barat, A.H.: Hungarians in the history of the UDC (2014) 0.01 
    0.0129712615 = product of:
  0.051885046 = sum of:
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 1429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=1429,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1429, 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=1429)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  4. Dousa, T.M.: ¬The simple and the complex in E. C. Richardson's theory of classification : observations on an early KO model of the relationship between ontology and epistemology (2010) 0.01 
    0.010809385 = product of:
  0.04323754 = sum of:
    0.04323754 = weight(_text_:22 in 3509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04323754 = score(doc=3509,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3509, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3509)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Pages
    S.15-22
  5. Satija, M.P.: Abridged Dewey-15 (2012) in historical perspectives (2012) 0.01 
    0.010809385 = product of:
  0.04323754 = sum of:
    0.04323754 = weight(_text_:22 in 116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04323754 = score(doc=116,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 116, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=116)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    3. 3.2016 18:59:22

Authors

Themes