Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval"
  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  • × year_i:[1990 TO 2000}
  1. Kwasnik, B.H.: ¬The role of classification in knowledge representation (1999) 0.02
    0.02198181 = product of:
      0.04396362 = sum of:
        0.04396362 = sum of:
          0.010317672 = weight(_text_:a in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.010317672 = score(doc=2464,freq=16.0), product of:
              0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041389145 = queryNorm
              0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 2464, product of:
                4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                  16.0 = termFreq=16.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2464)
          0.033645947 = weight(_text_:22 in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.033645947 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.14493774 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041389145 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2464, 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=2464)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    A fascinating, broad-ranging article about classification, knowledge, and how they relate. Hierarchies, trees, paradigms (a two-dimensional classification that can look something like a spreadsheet), and facets are covered, with descriptions of how they work and how they can be used for knowledge discovery and creation. Kwasnick outlines how to make a faceted classification: choose facets, develop facets, analyze entities using the facets, and make a citation order. Facets are useful for many reasons: they do not require complete knowledge of the entire body of material; they are hospitable, flexible, and expressive; they do not require a rigid background theory; they can mix theoretical structures and models; and they allow users to view things from many perspectives. Facets do have faults: it can be hard to pick the right ones; it is hard to show relations between them; and it is difficult to visualize them. The coverage of the other methods is equally thorough and there is much to consider for anyone putting a classification on the web.
    Source
    Library trends. 48(1999) no.1, S.22-47
    Type
    a
  2. Spiteri, L.: ¬A simplified model for facet analysis : Ranganathan 101 (1998) 0.00
    0.0022338415 = product of:
      0.004467683 = sum of:
        0.004467683 = product of:
          0.008935366 = sum of:
            0.008935366 = weight(_text_:a in 3842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008935366 = score(doc=3842,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041389145 = queryNorm
                0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 3842, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3842)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Ranganathan's canons, principles, and postulates can easily confuse readers, especially because he revised and added to them in various editions of his many books. The Classification Research Group, who drew on Ranganathan's work as their basis for classification theory but developed it in their own way, has never clearly organized all their equivalent canons and principles. In this article Spiteri gathers the fundamental rules from both systems and compares and contrasts them. She makes her own clearer set of principles for constructing facets, stating the subject of a document, and designing notation. Spiteri's "simplified model" is clear and understandable, but certainly not simplistic. The model does not include methods for making a faceted system, but will serve as a very useful guide in how to turn initial work into a rigorous classification. Highly recommended
    Type
    a
  3. Ellis, D.; Vasconcelos, A.: Ranganathan and the Net : using facet analysis to search and organise the World Wide Web (1999) 0.00
    0.0022338415 = product of:
      0.004467683 = sum of:
        0.004467683 = product of:
          0.008935366 = sum of:
            0.008935366 = weight(_text_:a in 726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008935366 = score(doc=726,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041389145 = queryNorm
                0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 726, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=726)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper documents the continuing relevance of facet analysis as a technique for searching and organising WWW based materials. The 2 approaches underlying WWW searching and indexing - word and concept based indexing - are outlined. It is argued that facet analysis as an a posteriori approach to classification using words from the subject field as the concept terms in the classification derived represents an excellent approach to searching and organising the results of WWW searches using either search engines or search directories. Finally it is argued that the underlying philosophy of facet analysis is better suited to the disparate nature of WWW resources and searchers than the assumptions of contemporaray IR research.
    This article gives a cheerfully brief and undetailed account of how to make a faceted classification system, then describes information retrieval and searching on the web. It concludes by saying that facets would be excellent in helping users search and browse the web, but offers no real clues as to how this can be done.
    Type
    a
  4. Classification research for knowledge representation and organization : Proc. of the 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991 (1992) 0.00
    0.001823924 = product of:
      0.003647848 = sum of:
        0.003647848 = product of:
          0.007295696 = sum of:
            0.007295696 = weight(_text_:a in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007295696 = score(doc=2072,freq=32.0), product of:
                0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041389145 = queryNorm
                0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
                  5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
                    32.0 = termFreq=32.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This volume deals with both theoretical and empirical research in classification and encompasses universal classification systems, special classification systems, thesauri and the place of classification in a broad spectrum of document and information systems. Papers fall into one or three major areas as follows: 1) general principles and policies 2) structure and logic in classification; and empirical investigation; classification in the design of various types of document/information systems. The papers originate from the ISCCR '91 conference and have been selected according to the following criteria: relevance to the conference theme; importance of the topic in the representation and organization of knowledge; quality; and originality in terms of potential contribution to research and new knowledge.
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: SVENONIUS, E.: Classification: prospects, problems, and possibilities; BEALL, J.: Editing the Dewey Decimal Classification online: the evolution of the DDC database; BEGHTOL, C.: Toward a theory of fiction analysis for information storage and retrieval; CRAVEN, T.C.: Concept relation structures and their graphic display; FUGMANN, R.: Illusory goals in information science research; GILCHRIST, A.: UDC: the 1990's and beyond; GREEN, R.: The expression of syntagmatic relationships in indexing: are frame-based index languages the answer?; HUMPHREY, S.M.: Use and management of classification systems for knowledge-based indexing; MIKSA, F.L.: The concept of the universe of knowledge and the purpose of LIS classification; SCOTT, M. u. A.F. FONSECA: Methodology for functional appraisal of records and creation of a functional thesaurus; ALBRECHTSEN, H.: PRESS: a thesaurus-based information system for software reuse; AMAESHI, B.: A preliminary AAT compatible African art thesaurus; CHATTERJEE, A.: Structures of Indian classification systems of the pre-Ranganathan era and their impact on the Colon Classification; COCHRANE, P.A.: Indexing and searching thesauri, the Janus or Proteus of information retrieval; CRAVEN, T.C.: A general versus a special algorithm in the graphic display of thesauri; DAHLBERG, I.: The basis of a new universal classification system seen from a philosophy of science point of view: DRABENSTOTT, K.M., RIESTER, L.C. u. B.A.DEDE: Shelflisting using expert systems; FIDEL, R.: Thesaurus requirements for an intermediary expert system; GREEN, R.: Insights into classification from the cognitive sciences: ramifications for index languages; GROLIER, E. de: Towards a syndetic information retrieval system; GUENTHER, R.: The USMARC format for classification data: development and implementation; HOWARTH, L.C.: Factors influencing policies for the adoption and integration of revisions to classification schedules; HUDON, M.: Term definitions in subject thesauri: the Canadian literacy thesaurus experience; HUSAIN, S.: Notational techniques for the accomodation of subjects in Colon Classification 7th edition: theoretical possibility vis-à-vis practical need; KWASNIK, B.H. u. C. JORGERSEN: The exploration by means of repertory grids of semantic differences among names of official documents; MICCO, M.: Suggestions for automating the Library of Congress Classification schedules; PERREAULT, J.M.: An essay on the prehistory of general categories (II): G.W. Leibniz, Conrad Gesner; REES-POTTER, L.K.: How well do thesauri serve the social sciences?; REVIE, C.W. u. G. SMART: The construction and the use of faceted classification schema in technical domains; ROCKMORE, M.: Structuring a flexible faceted thsaurus record for corporate information retrieval; ROULIN, C.: Sub-thesauri as part of a metathesaurus; SMITH, L.C.: UNISIST revisited: compatibility in the context of collaboratories; STILES, W.G.: Notes concerning the use chain indexing as a possible means of simulating the inductive leap within artificial intelligence; SVENONIUS, E., LIU, S. u. B. SUBRAHMANYAM: Automation in chain indexing; TURNER, J.: Structure in data in the Stockshot database at the National Film Board of Canada; VIZINE-GOETZ, D.: The Dewey Decimal Classification as an online classification tool; WILLIAMSON, N.J.: Restructuring UDC: problems and possibilies; WILSON, A.: The hierarchy of belief: ideological tendentiousness in universal classification; WILSON, B.F.: An evaluation of the systematic botany schedule of the Universal Decimal Classification (English full edition, 1979); ZENG, L.: Research and development of classification and thesauri in China; CONFERENCE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  5. Gödert, W.: Strukturierung von Klassifikationssystemen und Online-Retrieval (1995) 0.00
    0.0015199365 = product of:
      0.003039873 = sum of:
        0.003039873 = product of:
          0.006079746 = sum of:
            0.006079746 = weight(_text_:a in 922) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.006079746 = score(doc=922,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041389145 = queryNorm
                0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 922, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=922)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  6. Pocock, H.: Classification schemes : development and survival (1997) 0.00
    0.0015199365 = product of:
      0.003039873 = sum of:
        0.003039873 = product of:
          0.006079746 = sum of:
            0.006079746 = weight(_text_:a in 762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.006079746 = score(doc=762,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041389145 = queryNorm
                0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 762, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=762)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a