Search (129 results, page 2 of 7)

0.002579418 = product of:
  0.005158836 = sum of:
    0.005158836 = product of:
      0.010317672 = sum of:
        0.010317672 = weight(_text_:a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010317672 = score(doc=400,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.00252053 = product of:
  0.00504106 = sum of:
    0.00504106 = product of:
      0.01008212 = sum of:
        0.01008212 = weight(_text_:a in 7410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01008212 = score(doc=7410,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 7410, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7410)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Once the library has been through a process of transition from traditional library procedures to automated ones, natural language searching became a necessity for both indexers and searchers. Therefore, aside from the precoordinated classified catalogue we started to build a dictionary of terms in order to make postcoordinate search possible in keeping with the UDC notations assigned to each bibliographic record. After a while we came to the conclusion that the dictionary needed a control of its terms so that synonymous concepts and semantic ambuguities be avoided. The project presented in this paper shows how reality imposed the improvement of the quality of indexing and hence of the searching possibilities. Is also shows the reasons why we consider a multilingual thesaurus based on UDC an ideal indexing and searching device. The experiment applied on class 8 of UDC illustrates the way the UDC tables can be quite successfully used in building a thesaurus due to their qulities and how their limitations can be overcome by a thesaurus. An appendix to the paper contains a sample of the multilingual thesaurus given in both alphabetical and systematic layouts

Type

a

0.00252053 = product of:
  0.00504106 = sum of:
    0.00504106 = product of:
      0.01008212 = sum of:
        0.01008212 = weight(_text_:a in 5570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01008212 = score(doc=5570,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 5570, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5570)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Dagobert Soergel opened the discussion by saying, "Users need our help to find and make sense of information." He said that he believes that classification can provide much of the support users need. He sees little distinction between the concept of a thesaurus and that of classification since both seek to provide structure for knowledge bases in order to facilitate information retrieval. Soergel's discussion of his concept of a multifunctional, multilingual thesaurus comprised the bulk of his presentation. This thesaurus would be a database of concepts, terms, and relationships which would include classification. In this context, classification has a much broader set of functions than it currently does in most American libraries where classification serves primarily as a method of shelf arrangement. The thesaurus Soergel envisions would lay out the semantic map of a field and could therefore be used as a learning tool or as a basis for research planning, or to assist users in clarifying terms and concepts. It could support indexing and searching and provide for the organization of knowledge for expert systems and other artificial intelligence applications. Among its other features, such a thesaurus could assist users in making sense of information by providing structured presentation of search results based on user needs and preferences, and it could enhance natural language processing capabilities such as automated indexing and abstracting and machine translation.

Type

a

0.0024318986 = product of:
  0.004863797 = sum of:
    0.004863797 = product of:
      0.009727594 = sum of:
        0.009727594 = weight(_text_:a in 2108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009727594 = score(doc=2108,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 2108, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It will not be an easy task to automate the Library of Congress Classification schedules because it is a very large system and also because it developed long before automation. The designers were creating a system for shelving books effiently and had not even imagined the constraints imposed by automation. A number of problems and possible solutions are discussed. The MARC format proposed for classification has some serious problems which are identified

Type

a

0.0024032309 = product of:
  0.0048064617 = sum of:
    0.0048064617 = product of:
      0.0096129235 = sum of:
        0.0096129235 = weight(_text_:a in 2414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0096129235 = score(doc=2414,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 2414, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2414)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Two interfaces are described for navigating large collections of document and book records. An Online Public Access Catalog interface uses a classification hierarchy to facilitate browsing and searching. The system has been implemented and currently runs with over 50,000 book records. Interface widgets allow the hierarchy to be displayed and traversed easily. For example, the Book Shelf dynamically updates itself to reflect searches and attribute selections. A second interface, not yet fully implemented, allows access to the ACM Computing Reviews classification. By browsing a graphic structure such as a classification hierarchy or term network, the user can select or negate terms to incrementally enlarge or refine the query. A number of systems have been proposed that utilise this type of interface: Allen [1] allows users to traverse sections of a classification hierarchy that are adjacent to documents retrieved by a search; Doyle [6] discusses a graph-based interactive browsing environment; Croft [4] extends Doyle's termbased graph with vertices and edges representing individual documents and their degrees of similarity to each other; Frei and Jauslin [7] use tree structures to represent both system command menus and document indexing structures; and Godin [10] and Pedersen [16] model a collection's conceptual structure with termdocument lattices.

Type

a

0.0023790773 = product of:
  0.0047581545 = sum of:
    0.0047581545 = product of:
      0.009516309 = sum of:
        0.009516309 = weight(_text_:a in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009516309 = score(doc=3124,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 3124, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3124)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The interfaculty centre of Bologna University began 2 years ago a project to 'translate' UDC codes into a user friendly thesaurus, with the object of creating an accurate, easy to use tool for online researches, especially those relating to periodical titles. The UDC numerical codes have been linked by a method based on synonyms to a series of corresponding verbal indices which express in natural language the concepts expressed by the codes. Thus researchers can retrieve information not only through UDC codes but also through their analogous verbal descriptors. Describes the progress of the UDC project so far, and some problems encountered

Type

a

0.0022338415 = product of:
  0.004467683 = sum of:
    0.004467683 = product of:
      0.008935366 = sum of:
        0.008935366 = weight(_text_:a in 5096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008935366 = score(doc=5096,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 5096, 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=5096)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper discusses constraints in knowledge organisation for information retrieval introduced by the difficulty of separating logical views of data, information, concepts and their relationships, from the physical means by which we seek to implement retrieval systems. A parallel is drawn between the move from enumerated to faceted classification and the emergence of relational database management systems to replace those adopting a hierarchical structure. This parallel suggests a convergence of ideas which have been, to a large extent, developed independently. The role of post-coordinated retrieval systems and thesauri is then examined before an interface design (HIBROWSE - a High resolution Interface for BROWsing and SEarching databases), is described which brings together the principles of faceted classification and increases the bandwidth of interaction through view-based searching.

Type

a

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

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

0.002149515 = product of:
  0.00429903 = sum of:
    0.00429903 = product of:
      0.00859806 = sum of:
        0.00859806 = weight(_text_:a in 5163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00859806 = score(doc=5163,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 5163, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5163)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A new design for the DDC allows for display of the schedules and indexes in a hypertextual browser which was originally designed for the more conventional thesaurus with BT-NT, RT and USE-UF relations. Features of the DDC which approxumate those relations and the presentation of the rich vocabulary found in the hierarchical structure, captions, index entries and notes are represented for the library user's perusal and choice before searching a library's holdings. By dragging and dropping parts from such a display into a search window, the search for bibliographic items can begin and revised painlessly. Information such as class numbers of subject headings for retrieved items can be dragged and dropped into the searchw indow of the Visual Dewey display window as it suits the user to review vocabulary or revise the search results. This seamless to-ing and fro-ing allows for a truly interactive and spontaneous search environment, with maximum assistance at point of need. 'File folders' exist for saving any Visual Dewey information, any retrieved items, etc.

Type

a

0.002149515 = product of:
  0.00429903 = sum of:
    0.00429903 = product of:
      0.00859806 = sum of:
        0.00859806 = weight(_text_:a in 7724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00859806 = score(doc=7724,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 7724, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7724)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.002149515 = product of:
  0.00429903 = sum of:
    0.00429903 = product of:
      0.00859806 = sum of:
        0.00859806 = weight(_text_:a in 5825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00859806 = score(doc=5825,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 5825, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5825)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The study of faceted classification systems has primarily been directed towards application for precombined catalogues or bibliographies, not so much for use in post coordinated retrieval systems. Argues that faceted classification systems in some respects are superior to other techniques of on-line retrieval as far as facet and concept analysis is combined with an expressive notational system in order to guide a form of retrieval which will use Boolean operators (for combining the facets regardless of one special citation order) and truncation for retrieving hierarchically different sets of documents. This point of view is demonstrated by 2 examples. The 1st one uses a short classification system derived from B. Buchanan and the 2nd is built upon the classification system used by Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Further discussion is concerned with some possible consequences which could be derived from a retrieval with PRECIS strings
"Online retrieval" conjures up a very different mental image now than in 1991, the year this article was written, and the year Tim Berners-Lee first revealed the new hypertext system he called the World Wide Web. Gödert shows that truncation and Boolean logic, combined with notation from a faceted classification system, will be a powerful way of searching for information. It undoubtedly is, but no system built now would require a user searching for material on "nervous systems of bone fish" to enter "Fdd$ and Leaa$". This is worth reading for someone interested in seeing how searching and facets can go together, but the web has made this article quite out of date.

Type

a

0.0021279112 = product of:
  0.0042558224 = sum of:
    0.0042558224 = product of:
      0.008511645 = sum of:
        0.008511645 = weight(_text_:a in 146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008511645 = score(doc=146,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 146, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=146)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0021279112 = product of:
  0.0042558224 = sum of:
    0.0042558224 = product of:
      0.008511645 = sum of:
        0.008511645 = weight(_text_:a in 766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008511645 = score(doc=766,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 766, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=766)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0021279112 = product of:
  0.0042558224 = sum of:
    0.0042558224 = product of:
      0.008511645 = sum of:
        0.008511645 = weight(_text_:a in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008511645 = score(doc=949,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0021279112 = product of:
  0.0042558224 = sum of:
    0.0042558224 = product of:
      0.008511645 = sum of:
        0.008511645 = weight(_text_:a in 1159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008511645 = score(doc=1159,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 1159, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1159)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0021279112 = product of:
  0.0042558224 = sum of:
    0.0042558224 = product of:
      0.008511645 = sum of:
        0.008511645 = weight(_text_:a in 7715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008511645 = score(doc=7715,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 7715, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7715)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The ILSA prototype was developed using an object-oriented multimedia user interfcae on six NeXT workstations with two databases: the first with 100.000 MARC records and the second with 20.000 additional records enhanced with table of contents data. The items are grouped into subject clusters consisting of the classification number and the first subject heading assigned. Every other distinct keyword in the MARC record is linked to the subject cluster in an automated natural language mapping scheme, which leads the user from the term entered to the controlled vocabulary of the subject clusters in which the term appeared. The use of a hierarchical classification number (Dewey) makes it possible to broaden or narrow a search at will

Type

a

0.0021279112 = product of:
  0.0042558224 = sum of:
    0.0042558224 = product of:
      0.008511645 = sum of:
        0.008511645 = weight(_text_:a in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008511645 = score(doc=515,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Developments in electronic communication technology have meda online databases a normal part of library collections. To provide users with direct access to Internet resources the Dutch Royal Library has cooperated with several university libraries in the Netherlands to develop the Nederlandse Basisclassificatie Web. Subject specialists select sources, add English summaries and NBW code, and input them to the online database. A Web desk and training workshops have been provided to assist users, and improvements to the system will simplify search procedures

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: A dwarf amongst giants?: the Dutch Basic classification of Web resources

Type

a

0.0021279112 = product of:
  0.0042558224 = sum of:
    0.0042558224 = product of:
      0.008511645 = sum of:
        0.008511645 = weight(_text_:a in 3229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008511645 = score(doc=3229,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 3229, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

By providing the means for systematic arrangement, library classification has been used for centuries to organise document collections. The development of systems such as DDC, LCC a,d UDC, made classification sophisticated enough to be used both for the systematic arrangement of a collection and for information retrieval through the use of classified catalogues. Relatively short alphanumeric classification indexes are able to indicate quite sophisticated concepts, helping to overcome language barriers. With the advent of library automation, their role in the document retrieval process has become less important, in comparison with retrieval by natural language

Type

a

0.0021279112 = product of:
  0.0042558224 = sum of:
    0.0042558224 = product of:
      0.008511645 = sum of:
        0.008511645 = weight(_text_:a in 661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008511645 = score(doc=661,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 661, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=661)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: STRACHAN, P.D.: UDC revision work in FID; SCIBOR, E. u. I.S. SHCHERBINA-SAMOJLOVA: A strategic approach to to revising the UDC; MCILWAINE, I.: The work of the system development task force; WILLIAMSON, N.J.: The UDC: its future; HAARALA, A.-R.: FID pre-conference seminar on computer applications of the UDC; LOTH, K. u. H. FUNK: Subject search on ETHICS on the basis of the UDC; KURHULA, P.: Use and usability of the UDC in classification practice and online retrieval; RINNE, B.: HELECON system: economics databases; NAKAMURA, Y. u. T. ISHIKAWA: Expert systems for automatic UDC number assignment; RIESTHUIS, G.J.A. u. S. BLIEDUNG: Thesaurification of UDC: preliminary report

Editor

Gilchrist, A.; Strachan, D.