Search (23 results, page 1 of 2)

0.05300828 = product of:
  0.10601656 = sum of:
    0.10601656 = sum of:
      0.081354395 = weight(_text_:subject in 3624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.081354395 = score(doc=3624,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.4998445 = fieldWeight in 3624, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3624)
      0.024662167 = weight(_text_:22 in 3624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024662167 = score(doc=3624,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3624, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3624)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Julia Pettee's contribution to classification theory came about as part of her work an subject headings. Pettee (1872-1967) was for many years librarian of the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was best known for the classification system she developed for the seminary and as the author of the book Subiect Headings. She was one of the first to call attention to the fact that there was a classification system in subject headings. It was, as she put it, "completely concealed when scattered through the alphabetical sequence" (p. 98). On the other hand, she recognized that an index entry was a pointing device and existed to show users specific terms. Index terms, unlike subject headings, could be manipulated, inverted, repeated, and stated in as many words as might be desired. The subject heading, she reiterated, had in it "some idea of classification," but was designed to pull together like material and, unlike the index term, would have limited capability for supplying access by way of synonyms, catchwords, or other associative forms. It is interesting that she also thought of the subject heading in context as forming a three-dimensional system. Logically this is the case whenever one attempts to reach beyond the conventional hierarchy as described an a plane surface, and, in fact, thought out as if the classification were an a plane surface. Pettee described this dimension variously as names "reaching up and over the surface ... hands clasp[ing] in the air" from an individual term (pp. 99-100). Or, in other context, as the mapping of "the many third-dimensional criss-crossing relationships of subject headings." (p. 103) Investigations following Pettee's insight have shown the nature and the degree of the classification latent in subject headings and also in the cross-references of all indexing systems using cross-references of the associative type ("see also" or equivalent terminology). More importantly, study of this type of connection has revealed jumps in logic and meaning caused by homographs or homonyms and resulting in false connections in classification. Standardized rules for making thesauri have prevented some of the more glaring non sequiturs, but much more still needs to be done. The whole area of "related terms", for example, needs to be brought under control, especially in terms of classification mapping.

Footnote

Original in: Pettee, J.: The history and theory of the alphabetical subject approach to books. New York: Wilson 1946. S.22-25.

Source

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

0.025726518 = product of:
  0.051453035 = sum of:
    0.051453035 = product of:
      0.10290607 = sum of:
        0.10290607 = weight(_text_:subject in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10290607 = score(doc=600,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.63225883 = fieldWeight in 600, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=600)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.025726518 = product of:
  0.051453035 = sum of:
    0.051453035 = product of:
      0.10290607 = sum of:
        0.10290607 = weight(_text_:subject in 1209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10290607 = score(doc=1209,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.63225883 = fieldWeight in 1209, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1209)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.025726518 = product of:
  0.051453035 = sum of:
    0.051453035 = product of:
      0.10290607 = sum of:
        0.10290607 = weight(_text_:subject in 1710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10290607 = score(doc=1710,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.63225883 = fieldWeight in 1710, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1710)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.025726518 = product of:
  0.051453035 = sum of:
    0.051453035 = product of:
      0.10290607 = sum of:
        0.10290607 = weight(_text_:subject in 1805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10290607 = score(doc=1805,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.63225883 = fieldWeight in 1805, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1805)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.023876205 = product of:
  0.04775241 = sum of:
    0.04775241 = product of:
      0.09550482 = sum of:
        0.09550482 = weight(_text_:subject in 3625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09550482 = score(doc=3625,freq=36.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.58678526 = fieldWeight in 3625, product of:
              6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
                36.0 = termFreq=36.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3625)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The publication in 1876 of Rules for a Printed Catalogue by Charies A. Cutter (1837-1903) was a landmark in the literature of library science. This code provided the basis for all subsequent codes of descriptive cataloging and catapulted the dictionary catalog into the position of being the predominant form of catalog in American libraries in years to come. Cutter's rules for subject entry were the first and, in essence, still the only codification of the alphabetical subject catalog. These Rules represented the culmination of many years' experience in compiling the dictionary catalog of the Boston Athenaeum (published in 18741882) during Cutter's tenure as its librarian from 1869 to 1893. Prior to the advent of the dictionary catalog, the popular method for organizing subject entries in a catalog was the classified arrangement, in the form of either the classed catalog (usually based an a particular classification scheme) or the alphabetico-classed catalog, in which the primary objective was subject collocation. Subject entries were arranged systematically and logically according to their subject relationships. In the alphabetical subject arrangement in the dictionary catalog, an the other hand, the primary objective is what Cutter calls the "facility of reference"; in other words, subjects can be located quickly in the catalog because they are listed directly under their specific names in an alphabetical order. Unlike the classed catalog which requires an accompanying index, the alphabetical subject catalog combines the functions of the subject entries and index in one alphabetical sequence, even though at the expense of subject collocation.
Some of the advantages of the classed catalog were then reintroduced into the alphabetical subject catalog through see also references and, to some extent, by the use of inverted headings. Although never officially acknowledged, Cutter's principles provided the philosophical underpinnings for the Library of Congress and the Sears subject headings systems. His principles of common usage, specific entry, uniform heading, and syndetic structure have been reflected in the Library of Congress Subject Headings practice and reiterated by David Judson Haykin (q.v.) in his exposition of the Library of Congress system. Cutter's definition of "specific entry" has been frequently quoted as the basis of the alphabetical subject catalog. Because Cutter's Rules are no longer in print, the following excerpt contains all the rules an subject entry from the fourth edition of Rules for a Dictionary Catalog. These rules, first published over a hundred years ago, do not address all the problems encountered in subject analysis in modern times. Nonetheless, many of his ideas are still valid and manifested in subject cataloging practice in American libraries today. Moreover, as A. C. Foskett comments, "his Rules can still be read with profit (and, more unusual in such works, pleasure) today."

Source

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

0.021572344 = product of:
  0.043144688 = sum of:
    0.043144688 = product of:
      0.086289376 = sum of:
        0.086289376 = weight(_text_:subject in 1535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.086289376 = score(doc=1535,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.5301652 = fieldWeight in 1535, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1535)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This writeup presents the fundamentals of subject indexing in terms of its development, scope, coverage, role in subject indexing techniques and the important elements to design a well-structured and effective subject indexing process, requirements and the infrastructure. From the time of RDC to PRECIS, the developers has been envisaged the problems to expand the flexibility and versatility of indexing technique. Whenever one indexing process is failed to achieve the maximum efficiency another is developed on the basis of failure. It concludes that all the developments of subject indexing processes during that era are leads to the innovation of Artificial Intelligence technique (AI), i.e. Natural Language Processing (NLP) by implementation of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in present time.

0.019294888 = product of:
  0.038589776 = sum of:
    0.038589776 = product of:
      0.07717955 = sum of:
        0.07717955 = weight(_text_:subject in 3630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07717955 = score(doc=3630,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 3630, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3630)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Julia Pettee's contribution to classification theory came about as part of her work an subject headings. Pettee (1872-1967) was for many years librarian of the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was best known for the classification system she developed for the seminary and as the author of the book Subiect Headings. She was one of the first to call attention to the fact that there was a classification system in subject headings. It was, as she put it, "completely concealed when scattered through the alphabetical sequence" (p. 98). On the other hand, she recognized that an index entry was a pointing device and existed to show users specific terms. Index terms, unlike subject headings, could be manipulated, inverted, repeated, and stated in as many words as might be desired. The subject heading, she reiterated, had in it "some idea of classification," but was designed to pull together like material and, unlike the index term, would have limited capability for supplying access by way of synonyms, catchwords, or other associative forms. It is interesting that she also thought of the subject heading in context as forming a three-dimensional system. Logically this is the case whenever one attempts to reach beyond the conventional hierarchy as described an a plane surface, and, in fact, thought out as if the classification were an a plane surface. Pettee described this dimension variously as names "reaching up and over the surface ... hands clasp[ing] in the air" from an individual term (pp. 99-100). Or, in other context, as the mapping of "the many third-dimensional criss-crossing relationships of subject headings." (p. 103) Investigations following Pettee's insight have shown the nature and the degree of the classification latent in subject headings and also in the cross-references of all indexing systems using cross-references of the associative type ("see also" or equivalent terminology). More importantly, study of this type of connection has revealed jumps in logic and meaning caused by homographs or homonyms and resulting in false connections in classification. Standardized rules for making thesauri have prevented some of the more glaring non sequiturs, but much more still needs to be done. The whole area of "related terms", for example, needs to be brought under control, especially in terms of classification mapping.

Footnote

Original in: Pettee, J.: The history and theory of the alphabetical subject approach to books. New York: Wilson 1946. S.73-76.

Source

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

0.019294888 = product of:
  0.038589776 = sum of:
    0.038589776 = product of:
      0.07717955 = sum of:
        0.07717955 = weight(_text_:subject in 3633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07717955 = score(doc=3633,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 3633, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3633)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Julia Pettee's contribution to classification theory came about as part of her work an subject headings. Pettee (1872-1967) was for many years librarian of the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was best known for the classification system she developed for the seminary and as the author of the book Subiect Headings. She was one of the first to call attention to the fact that there was a classification system in subject headings. It was, as she put it, "completely concealed when scattered through the alphabetical sequence" (p. 98). On the other hand, she recognized that an index entry was a pointing device and existed to show users specific terms. Index terms, unlike subject headings, could be manipulated, inverted, repeated, and stated in as many words as might be desired. The subject heading, she reiterated, had in it "some idea of classification," but was designed to pull together like material and, unlike the index term, would have limited capability for supplying access by way of synonyms, catchwords, or other associative forms. It is interesting that she also thought of the subject heading in context as forming a three-dimensional system. Logically this is the case whenever one attempts to reach beyond the conventional hierarchy as described an a plane surface, and, in fact, thought out as if the classification were an a plane surface. Pettee described this dimension variously as names "reaching up and over the surface ... hands clasp[ing] in the air" from an individual term (pp. 99-100). Or, in other context, as the mapping of "the many third-dimensional criss-crossing relationships of subject headings." (p. 103) Investigations following Pettee's insight have shown the nature and the degree of the classification latent in subject headings and also in the cross-references of all indexing systems using cross-references of the associative type ("see also" or equivalent terminology). More importantly, study of this type of connection has revealed jumps in logic and meaning caused by homographs or homonyms and resulting in false connections in classification. Standardized rules for making thesauri have prevented some of the more glaring non sequiturs, but much more still needs to be done. The whole area of "related terms", for example, needs to be brought under control, especially in terms of classification mapping.

Footnote

Original in: Pettee, J.: The history and theory of the alphabetical subject approach to books. New York: Wilson 1946. S.57-60.

Source

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

0.018496625 = product of:
  0.03699325 = sum of:
    0.03699325 = product of:
      0.0739865 = sum of:
        0.0739865 = weight(_text_:22 in 6041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0739865 = score(doc=6041,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6041, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6041)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Kölner Arbeiten zum Bibliotheks- und Dokumentationswesen; H.22

0.018069211 = product of:
  0.036138423 = sum of:
    0.036138423 = product of:
      0.14455369 = sum of:
        0.14455369 = weight(_text_:3a in 7394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14455369 = score(doc=7394,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38580707 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 7394, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7394)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ergebnis einer Umfrage aus dem Frühjahr 1993. A. Wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken: Versandt wurde der Fragebogen an die Mitglieder der Sektion IV des DBV. Fragen: (1a) Um welchen Bestand handelt es sich, der sachlich erschlossen wird? (1b) Wie groß ist dieser Bestand? (1c) Wird dieser Bestand vollständig oder nur in Auswahl (einzelne Fächer, Lehrbücher, Dissertationen o.ä.) sachlich erschlossen? (1d) Seit wann bestehen die jetzigen Sachkataloge? (2) Auf welche Art wird der Bestand zur Zeit sachlich erschlossen? (3a) Welche Klassifikation wird angewendet? (3b) Gibt es alphabetisches SyK-Register bzw. einen Zugriff auf die Klassenbeschreibungen? (3c) Gibt es ergänzende Schlüssel für die Aspekte Ort, Zeit, Form? (4) Falls Sie einen SWK führen (a) nach welchem Regelwerk? (b) Gibt es ein genormtes Vokabular oder einen Thesaurus (ggf. nur für bestimmte Fächer)? (5) In welcher Form existieren die Sachkataloge? (6) Ist die Bibliothek an einer kooperativen Sacherschließung, z.B. in einem Verbund beteiligt? [Nein: 79%] (7) Nutzen Sie Fremdleistungen bei der Sacherschließung? [Ja: 46%] (8) Welche sachlichen Suchmöglichkeiten gibt es für Benutzer? (9) Sind zukünftige Veränderungen bei der Sacherschließung geplant? [Ja: 73%]. - B. Öffentliche Bibliotheken: Die Umfrage richtete sich an alle ÖBs der Sektionen I, II und III des DBV. Fragen: (1) Welche Sachkataloge führen Sie? (2) Welche Klassifikationen (Systematiken) liegen dem SyK zugrunde? [ASB: 242; KAB: 333; SfB: 4 (???); SSD: 11; Berliner: 18] (3) Führen Sie ein eigenes Schlagwort-Register zum SyK bzw. zur Klassifikation (Systematik)? (4) Führen Sie den SWK nach ...? [RSWK: 132 (= ca. 60%) anderen Regeln: 93] (5) Seit wann bestehen die jetzigen Sachkataloge? (6) In welcher Form existiern die Sachkataloge? (7) In welchem Umfang wird der Bestand erschlossen? (8) Welche Signaturen verwenden Sie? (9) Ist die Bibliothek an einer kooperativen Sacherschließung, z.B. einem Verbund, beteiligt? [Nein: 96%] (10) Nutzen Sie Fremdleistungen bei der Sacherschließung? [Ja: 70%] (11) Woher beziehen Sie diese Fremdleistungen? (12) Verfügen Sie über ein Online-Katalogsystem mit OPAC? [Ja: 78; Nein: 614] (13) Sind zukünftig Veränderungen bei der Sacherschließung geplant? [Nein: 458; Ja: 237]; RESÜMEE für ÖB: "(i) Einführung von EDV-Katalogen bleibt auch in den 90er Jahren ein Thema, (ii) Der Aufbau von SWK wird in vielen Bibliotheken in Angriff genommen, dabei spielt die Fremddatenübernahme eine entscheidende Rolle, (iii) RSWK werden zunehmend angewandt, Nutzung der SWD auch für andere Regeln wirkt normierend, (iv) Große Bewegung auf dem 'Systematik-Markt' ist in absehbarer Zeit nicht zu erwarten, (v) Für kleinere Bibliotheken wird der Zettelkatalog auf absehbare Zeit noch die herrschende Katalogform sein, (vi) Der erhebliche Nachholbedarf in den neuen Bundesländern wird nur in einem größeren Zeitraum zu leisten sein. ??? SPEZIALBIBIOTHEKEN ???

0.014381561 = product of:
  0.028763123 = sum of:
    0.028763123 = product of:
      0.057526246 = sum of:
        0.057526246 = weight(_text_:subject in 3024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057526246 = score(doc=3024,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.35344344 = fieldWeight in 3024, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3024)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Paul Otlet : friends and books for information needsRepresenting documents and persons in information systems : library and information science and citation indexing and analysis -- Social computing and the indexing of the whole -- The document as the subject : androids -- Governing expression : social big data and neoliberalism.

Footnote

Vgl. auch den Beitrag: Day, R.E.: An afterword to indexing it all: the subject in the age of documentation, information, and data. In: Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 42(2016) no.2, S.25-28. Rez. in: JASIST 67(2016) no.7, S.1784-1786 (H.A. Olson).

LCSH

Subject (Philosophy)

Subject

Subject (Philosophy)

0.013643546 = product of:
  0.027287092 = sum of:
    0.027287092 = product of:
      0.054574184 = sum of:
        0.054574184 = weight(_text_:subject in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054574184 = score(doc=539,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 539, 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=539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper attempts to summarize the rich and interesting history of cataloging in Medieval monastic libraries, when the production of books was in its infancy. It discusses some of these early practices when books were few in number and very valuable to the community. In the beginning, catalogs were mostly inventory lists of treasures, not used for research direction. Only the librarian or armarius was consulted for research direction. Complicating these practices was the fact that several "books" were often bound together in the same binding which would have hindered subject cataoging. As books' value evolved toward their subject matter rather than their value as physical objects, and the catalog grew from an inventory list for the librarian toward a guide for patrons, and the rudimentary inventory practices grew toward the modern research direction-oriented cataloging methods, the medieval catalog approached the modern catalog in purpose and content.

0.012331083 = product of:
  0.024662167 = sum of:
    0.024662167 = product of:
      0.049324334 = sum of:
        0.049324334 = weight(_text_:22 in 6607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049324334 = score(doc=6607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6607, 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=6607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Probleme des Wiederaufbaus im wissenschaftlichen Bibliothekswesen: aus d. Verhandlungen des 1. Bibliothekartagung der britischen Zone in Hamburg vom 22.-24.10.1946

0.012331083 = product of:
  0.024662167 = sum of:
    0.024662167 = product of:
      0.049324334 = sum of:
        0.049324334 = weight(_text_:22 in 2521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049324334 = score(doc=2521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2521, 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=2521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2008 13:33:51

0.012331083 = product of:
  0.024662167 = sum of:
    0.024662167 = product of:
      0.049324334 = sum of:
        0.049324334 = weight(_text_:22 in 1432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049324334 = score(doc=1432,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1432, 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=1432)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 8.2016 15:58:46

0.010789698 = product of:
  0.021579396 = sum of:
    0.021579396 = product of:
      0.043158792 = sum of:
        0.043158792 = weight(_text_:22 in 3363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043158792 = score(doc=3363,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3363, 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=3363)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2013 12:10:07

0.009647444 = product of:
  0.019294888 = sum of:
    0.019294888 = product of:
      0.038589776 = sum of:
        0.038589776 = weight(_text_:subject in 7300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038589776 = score(doc=7300,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 7300, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7300)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Mobilising the information stored in documents to advance learning and social well-being provides information science with a fundamental social objective. It also presents it with a characteristic set of technical and professional problems. Until recently, information storage and retrieval systems, of which the library is one of the oldest and most important examples, have not provided a direct solutuion to the problem of providing access to needed information. Instead they have attempted to identify and provide physical access to written or printed documents that might contain information that is needed or might be useful. Perhaps creating systems to substitute what documents may be about for what documents contain is a process of realistic simplfication in the face of overwhleming technical and 'epistemological' problems. But it is speculative approaches to overcoming these problems that are the subject of this paper

0.009647444 = product of:
  0.019294888 = sum of:
    0.019294888 = product of:
      0.038589776 = sum of:
        0.038589776 = weight(_text_:subject in 5483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038589776 = score(doc=5483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 5483, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Argentine library science literature reflects a diverse interest in the subject organization of library collections. Early writings looked at the need to organize one library in particular (the National Library methodical catalog of 1893); and, therefore, the central issue was the adoption of a practical model of library organization. However, the twentieth century inaugurated the era of library studies in the strictest sense. It began an exchange of ideas about the advantages and disadvantages of decimal classification, and it resulted in the work of Carlos V. Penna by the middle of the century. This article is based on the analysis and interpretation of the primary sources, with the purpose of identifying the influences of European and American library thought on the development of the history of classification in Argentina in a period during which a national library identity began to develop.

0.009647444 = product of:
  0.019294888 = sum of:
    0.019294888 = product of:
      0.038589776 = sum of:
        0.038589776 = weight(_text_:subject in 5553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038589776 = score(doc=5553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 5553, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper suggests writing a companion work to the Bourne and Hahn book, History of Online Information Services, 1963-1976 (2003), which would feature milestone improvements in subject access mechanisms developed over time. To provide a background for such a work, a 1976 paper by Meincke and Atherton is revisited wherein the concept of Knowledge Space is defined as "online mechanisms used for handling a user's knowledge level while a search was being formulated and processed." Research that followed in the 1980s and 1990s is linked together for the first time. Seven projects are suggested for current researchers to undertake so they can assess the utility of earlier research ideas that did not get a proper chance for development. It is just possible that they may have value and be found useful in today's information environment.