Search (33 results, page 2 of 2)

0.008310735 = product of:
  0.01662147 = sum of:
    0.01662147 = product of:
      0.03324294 = sum of:
        0.03324294 = weight(_text_:research in 5568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03324294 = score(doc=5568,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.22288933 = fieldWeight in 5568, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5568)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ia McIlwaine, head of the Classification Research Group and editor of the UDC, noticed that the session's title invited crystal ball gazing, a talent she denied possessing. However, she admitted that she had asked the Classification Research Group to engage in such an exercise with her. The Group found, like the participants at the Allerton Institute were finding, that the contemplation of classification's future provided more questions than answers, but the questions were well worth considering. Her talk focused around a problem which originates in the difference between classifiers' uses and users' uses for classification systems. For users, who speak with the paraphrased self-confidence of Humpty Dumpty, a subject is a subject because they say it is. McIlwaine pointed out that this process of "saying" is at the heart of the users' needs which should be addressed by classification systems. Users use words to approach information systems and their associated classification systems. Classifiers need to recognize that this is the use to which their systems will be put. A body of users external to the classification process will make very different demands upon the system as compared to the users of the classification system who are also the creators of the system. Users desire information grouped for individual usefulness, and the groupings need to be according to words through which users can approach the system.

0.008227208 = product of:
  0.016454415 = sum of:
    0.016454415 = product of:
      0.03290883 = sum of:
        0.03290883 = weight(_text_:research in 6486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03290883 = score(doc=6486,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.22064918 = fieldWeight in 6486, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6486)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Contribution to thematic issue of art libraries in the Netherlands. Visual images are now widely recognised as an importatnt resource for the historical research. To improve access to collections of such material H. van de Wal developed ICONCLASS in the Netherlands. With some 150.000 controlled indexing terms the scheme is hierarchical and easy to use. In response to requests a version of ICONCLASS has been developed for use in automated systems. The scheme has been used by the Dutch Royal Library for its database of printers' devices, published in CD-ROM version in Dec. 91. Experience with the project shows the need for careful preparations and the use of trained staff

0.008227208 = product of:
  0.016454415 = sum of:
    0.016454415 = product of:
      0.03290883 = sum of:
        0.03290883 = weight(_text_:research in 3031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03290883 = score(doc=3031,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.22064918 = fieldWeight in 3031, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3031)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper describes the background underlying and the methods to be used in an investigation of use of the gopher protocol for browsing and searching for information via the Internet. Networked information resources are notoriously difficult to find; gopher is one attempt to facilitate the processes of organization and retrieval in that environment. Our project will design classification schemes based on traditional library models (i.e. Dewey and Library of Congress) and compare use of these to use of an existing gopher. We describe the project, the research questions, literature on related issues, the construction of the classification schemes, and the experimental methodology used

0.008227208 = product of:
  0.016454415 = sum of:
    0.016454415 = product of:
      0.03290883 = sum of:
        0.03290883 = weight(_text_:research in 3577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03290883 = score(doc=3577,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.22064918 = fieldWeight in 3577, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3577)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Subject retrieval by Library of Congress (LC) Classification numbers is examined from the perspective of 5 user groups of on-line catalogues. Although, at present, librarians are the user group most likely to benefit from the LC classification advances in the capabilities of on-line catalogues. Research on the use of the LC classification schedules as a component of subject retrieval should continue.

0.007051893 = product of:
  0.014103786 = sum of:
    0.014103786 = product of:
      0.028207572 = sum of:
        0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 3735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028207572 = score(doc=3735,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 3735, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3735)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes the development by the Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory, Hyderabad, India, of an expert system for classification of technical documents using the UDC schedule for metallurgy as knowledge base and the UDC classification rules as rule base. The scheme was modified from its enumerative structure to an analytico-synthetic structure which is best suited to such an expert system. Some benefits of the expert system are that: it interacts with the classifier making them conform to the route suggested by the classification scheme; it alerts the classifier to the minor variations in the scheme thus avoiding overlooking them; it leads to consistency in class number generation; and it ensures that the classifier has incorporated als the concepts of the subject in the class number, by leading him or her through all the groups, which is not possible in the manual scheme

0.007051893 = product of:
  0.014103786 = sum of:
    0.014103786 = product of:
      0.028207572 = sum of:
        0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 5184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028207572 = score(doc=5184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 5184, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

For generations, libraries have facilitated access to information sources by the development and use of a wide range of appropriate organizational processes. Within a Web-based demonstration prototype, we have applied several established library procedures, principles and practices to enhance access to selected Internet resources in science and technology. In seeking to manage these sources, we have established defined collection, adopted an established library classification scheme as an organizational framework, and sought to stimulate the features and functions of a physical library collection and conventional reference sourcees. This paper describes the key components of this prototype, reviews research which supports its approach, and profiles suggested enhancements which could further facilitate identification, access and use of significant Internet and WWW resources

0.007051893 = product of:
  0.014103786 = sum of:
    0.014103786 = product of:
      0.028207572 = sum of:
        0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 4429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028207572 = score(doc=4429,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 4429, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4429)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The application of classification schemes and thesauri to improve online information retrieval can be traced back to the beginnings of online searching itself, but the true potential for using knowledge structures in the user interface has yet to be realized. View-based searching seeks to exploit the classified arrangements in thesauri and existing classification schemes to improve the performance of such systems. HIBROWSE for EMBASE is a system which demonstrates the power of applying an approach to information retrieval which is strongly related to faceted classification. It does this by employing a point a click user interface with mutually constraining views utilising knowledge structure hierarchies for both query specification and the presentation of results. The relevance of this approach to library OPACs is discussed in the context of the digital library, concluding that out legacy of research in classification and indexing is more relevant than ever in the design of systems to cope with the problems of information access

0.007051893 = product of:
  0.014103786 = sum of:
    0.014103786 = product of:
      0.028207572 = sum of:
        0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 5096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028207572 = score(doc=5096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 5096, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5096)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization for information retrieval: Proceedings of the 6th International Study Conference on Classification Research ; held at University College, London, 16-18 June 1997

0.007051893 = product of:
  0.014103786 = sum of:
    0.014103786 = product of:
      0.028207572 = sum of:
        0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 5698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028207572 = score(doc=5698,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 5698, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5698)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.007051893 = product of:
  0.014103786 = sum of:
    0.014103786 = product of:
      0.028207572 = sum of:
        0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 3842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028207572 = score(doc=3842,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 3842, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, 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

0.007051893 = product of:
  0.014103786 = sum of:
    0.014103786 = product of:
      0.028207572 = sum of:
        0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028207572 = score(doc=726,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 726, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, 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.

0.005876578 = product of:
  0.011753156 = sum of:
    0.011753156 = product of:
      0.023506312 = sum of:
        0.023506312 = weight(_text_:research in 5555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023506312 = score(doc=5555,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 5555, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5555)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As librarians increasingly try to use their online catalogues to do what used to be done with their card shelflists, they are realizing that some catalogue sedigners and vendors have not paid enough attention to online shelf order classification access. Compares the call number searching abilities of 8 prominent, mature library systems: VTLS, Inlex, Innovative Interfaces, Inc., Data Research Associates (DRA), Geac Advance, Dynix, SIRSI, and NOTIS. Using 5 criteria that are important to cataloguers, each system was tested and rated for its suitability as an online shelflist. *** Special note from the authors: "[We've] become aware of a new version of SIRSI's Unicorn library system-- version 7.0 that changes our rating of SIRSI in a major way. We had rated SIRSI Unicorn a "C" in the paper, but now we would rate version 7.0 an "A". This is indeed a major change. Fortunately, we identified version numbers for each system in the article: we had tested version 6.1 of SIRSI. Thus, version 7.0 of SIRSI Unicorn, available in early 1995, has improved to the point that it meets every criteria used in the article for suitability as an online shelflist. The authors have evaluated version 7.0 with an "A" rating." ***

0.005876578 = product of:
  0.011753156 = sum of:
    0.011753156 = product of:
      0.023506312 = sum of:
        0.023506312 = weight(_text_:research in 5570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023506312 = score(doc=5570,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 5570, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, 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.