Search (89 results, page 2 of 5)

0.008160617 = product of:
  0.024481852 = sum of:
    0.007728611 = weight(_text_:in in 1492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007728611 = score(doc=1492,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 1492, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1492)
    0.01675324 = weight(_text_:und in 1492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01675324 = score(doc=1492,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.17315367 = fieldWeight in 1492, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1492)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Describes the features und capabilities of the software SATSAN AUTOMATRIX version 1 for semi-automatic synthesis of Colon Class number (CCN) for a given subject according to the Postulational Approach formulated by S.R. Ranganathan. The present Auto-Matrix version l gives the user more facilities to carry out facet analysis of a subject (simple, compound. or complex) preparatory to synthesizing the corresponding CCN. The software also enables searching for and using previously constructed class numbers automatically, maintenance and use of databases of CC Index, facet formulae and CC schedules for subjects going with different Basic Subjects. The paper begins with a brief account of the authors' consultations with und directions received from. Prof A. Neelameghan in the course of developing the software. Oracle 8 and VB6 have been used in writing the programmes. But for operating SATSAN it is not necessary for users to he proficient in VB6 and Oracle 8 languages. Any computer literate with the basic knowledge of Microsoft Word will he able to use this application software.

0.0059145326 = product of:
  0.035487194 = sum of:
    0.035487194 = product of:
      0.07097439 = sum of:
        0.07097439 = weight(_text_:22 in 6040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07097439 = score(doc=6040,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6040, 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=6040)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:42:47

0.0056390213 = product of:
  0.016917063 = sum of:
    0.01100253 = weight(_text_:in in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01100253 = score(doc=2047,freq=76.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18528788 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
          8.717798 = tf(freq=76.0), with freq of:
            76.0 = termFreq=76.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
    0.0059145326 = product of:
      0.011829065 = sum of:
        0.011829065 = weight(_text_:22 in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011829065 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

2. 1.2004 10:35:22

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 30(2003) no.1, S.40-42 (J.-E. Mai): "Introduction: This is a collection of papers presented at the National Seminar an Classification in the Digital Environment held in Bangalore, India, an August 9-11 2001. The collection contains 18 papers dealing with various issues related to knowledge organization and classification theory. The issue of transferring the knowledge, traditions, and theories of bibliographic classification to the digital environment is an important one, and I was excited to learn that proceedings from this seminar were available. Many of us experience frustration an a daily basis due to poorly constructed Web search mechanisms and Web directories. As a community devoted to making information easily accessible we have something to offer the Web community and a seminar an the topic was indeed much needed. Below are brief summaries of the 18 papers presented at the seminar. The order of the summaries follows the order of the papers in the proceedings. The titles of the paper are given in parentheses after the author's name. AHUJA and WESLEY (From "Subject" to "Need": Shift in Approach to Classifying Information an the Internet/Web) argue that traditional bibliographic classification systems fall in the digital environment. One problem is that bibliographic classification systems have been developed to organize library books an shelves and as such are unidimensional and tied to the paper-based environment. Another problem is that they are "subject" oriented in the sense that they assume a relatively stable universe of knowledge containing basic and fixed compartments of knowledge that can be identified and represented. Ahuja and Wesley suggest that classification in the digital environment should be need-oriented instead of subjectoriented ("One important link that binds knowledge and human being is his societal need. ... Hence, it will be ideal to organise knowledge based upon need instead of subject." (p. 10)).
AHUJA and SATIJA (Relevance of Ranganathan's Classification Theory in the Age of Digital Libraries) note that traditional bibliographic classification systems have been applied in the digital environment with only limited success. They find that the "inherent flexibility of electronic manipulation of documents or their surrogates should allow a more organic approach to allocation of new subjects and appropriate linkages between subject hierarchies." (p. 18). Ahija and Satija also suggest that it is necessary to shift from a "subject" focus to a "need" focus when applying classification theory in the digital environment. They find Ranganathan's framework applicable in the digital environment. Although Ranganathan's focus is "subject oriented and hence emphasise the hierarchical and linear relationships" (p. 26), his framework "can be successfully adopted with certain modifications ... in the digital environment." (p. 26). SHAH and KUMAR (Model for System Unification of Geographical Schedules (Space Isolates)) report an a plan to develop a single schedule for geographical Subdivision that could be used across all classification systems. The authors argue that this is needed in order to facilitate interoperability in the digital environment. SAN SEGUNDO MANUEL (The Representation of Knowledge as a Symbolization of Productive Electronic Information) distills different approaches and definitions of the term "representation" as it relates to representation of knowledge in the library and information science literature and field. SHARADA (Linguistic and Document Classification: Paradigmatic Merger Possibilities) suggests the development of a universal indexing language. The foundation for the universal indexing language is Chomsky's Minimalist Program and Ranganathan's analytico-synthetic classification theory; Acording to the author, based an these approaches, it "should not be a problem" (p. 62) to develop a universal indexing language.
SELVI (Knowledge Classification of Digital Information Materials with Special Reference to Clustering Technique) finds that it is essential to classify digital material since the amount of material that is becoming available is growing. Selvi suggests using automated classification to "group together those digital information materials or documents that are "most similar" (p. 65). This can be attained by using Cluster analysis methods. PRADHAN and THULASI (A Study of the Use of Classification and Indexing Systems by Web Resource Directories) compare and contrast the classificatory structures of Google, Yahoo, and Looksmart's directories and compare the directories to Dewey Decimal Classification, Library of Congress Classification and Colon Classification's classificatory structures. They find differentes between the directories' and the bibliographic classification systems' classificatory structures and principles. These differentes stem from the fact that bibliographic classification systems are used to "classify academic resources for the research community" (p. 83) and directories "aim to categorize a wider breath of information groups, entertainment, recreation, govt. information, commercial information" (p. 83). NEELAMEGHAN (Hierarchy, Hierarchical Relation and Hierarchical Arrangement) reviews the concept of hierarchy and the formation of hierarchical structures across a variety of domains. NEELAMEGHAN and PRADAD (Digitized Schemes for Subject Classification and Thesauri: Complementary Roles) demonstrate how thesaural relationships (NT, BT, and RT) can be applied to a classification scheme, the Colon Classification in this Gase. NEELAMEGHAN and ASUNDI (Metadata Framework for Describing Embodied Knowledge and Subject Content) propose to use the Generalized Facet Structure framework which is based an Ranganathan's General Theory of Knowledge Classification as a framework for describing the content of documents in a metadata element set for the representation of web documents. CHUDAMANI (Classified Catalogue as a Tool for Subject Based Information Retrieval in both Traditional and Electronic Library Environment) explains why the classified catalogue is superior to the alphabetic cata logue and argues that the same is true in the digital environment.
PARAMESWARAN (Classification and Indexing: Impact of Classification Theory an PRECIS) reviews the PRECIS system and finds that "it Gould not escape from the impact of the theory of classification" (p. 131). The author further argues that the purpose of classification and subject indexing is the same and that both approaches depends an syntax. This leads to the conclusion that "there is an absolute syntax as the Indian theory of classification points out" (p. 131). SATYAPAL and SANJIVINI SATYAPAL (Classifying Documents According to Postulational Approach: 1. SA TSAN- A Computer Based Learning Package) and SATYAPAL and SANJIVINI SATYAPAL (Classifying Documents According to Postulational Approach: 2. Semi-Automatic Synthesis of CC Numbers) present an application to automate classification using a facet classification system, in this Gase, the Colon Classification system. GAIKAIWARI (An Interactive Application for Faceted Classification Systems) presents an application, called SRR, for managing and using a faceted classification scheme in a digital environment. IYER (Use of Instructional Technology to Support Traditional Classroom Learning: A Case Study) describes a course an "Information and Knowledge Organization" that she teaches at the University at Albany (SUNY). The course is a conceptual course that introduces the student to various aspects of knowledge organization. GOPINATH (Universal Classification: How can it be used?) lists fifteen uses of universal classifications and discusses the entities of a number of disciplines. GOPINATH (Knowledge Classification: The Theory of Classification) briefly reviews the foundations for research in automatic classification, summarizes the history of classification, and places Ranganathan's thought in the history of classification.
Discussion The proceedings of the National Seminar an Classification in the Digital Environment give some insights. However, the depth of analysis and discussion is very uneven across the papers. Some of the papers have substantive research content while others appear to be notes used in the oral presentation. The treatments of the topics are very general in nature. Some papers have a very limited list of references while others have no bibliography. No index has been provided. The transfer of bibliographic knowledge organization theory to the digital environment is an important topic. However, as the papers at this conference have shown, it is also a difficult task. Of the 18 papers presented at this seminar an classification in the digital environment, only 4-5 papers actually deal directly with this important topic. The remaining papers deal with issues that are more or less relevant to classification in the digital environment without explicitly discussing the relation. The reason could be that the authors take up issues in knowledge organization that still need to be investigated and clarified before their application in the digital environment can be considered. Nonetheless, one wishes that the knowledge organization community would discuss the application of classification theory in the digital environment in greater detail. It is obvious from the comparisons of the classificatory structures of bibliographic classification systems and Web directories that these are different and that they probably should be different, since they serve different purposes. Interesting questions in the transformation of bibliographic classification theories to the digital environment are: "Given the existing principles in bibliographic knowledge organization, what are the optimum principles for organization of information, irrespectively of context?" and "What are the fundamental theoretical and practical principles for the construction of Web directories?" Unfortunately, the papers presented at this seminar do not attempt to answer or discuss these questions."

0.003943022 = product of:
  0.02365813 = sum of:
    0.02365813 = product of:
      0.04731626 = sum of:
        0.04731626 = weight(_text_:22 in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04731626 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4869, 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=4869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:39:23

0.0025762038 = product of:
  0.015457222 = sum of:
    0.015457222 = weight(_text_:in in 4742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015457222 = score(doc=4742,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.260307 = fieldWeight in 4742, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4742)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

Bericht über den Workshop am 21.10.1999 in der Deutschen Bibliothek in Frankfurt am Main

0.0025503114 = product of:
  0.015301868 = sum of:
    0.015301868 = weight(_text_:in in 232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015301868 = score(doc=232,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 232, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=232)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper examines some traditional information searching methods and their role in Hungarian OPACs. What challenges are there in the digital and online environment? How do users work with them and do they give users satisfactory results? What kinds of techniques are users employing? In this paper I examine the user interfaces of UDC, thesauri, subject headings etc. in the Hungarian library. The key question of the paper is whether a universal system or local solutions is the best approach for searching in the digital environment.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.10

0.0025241538 = product of:
  0.015144923 = sum of:
    0.015144923 = weight(_text_:in in 6866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015144923 = score(doc=6866,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 6866, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6866)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0025241538 = product of:
  0.015144923 = sum of:
    0.015144923 = weight(_text_:in in 111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015144923 = score(doc=111,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 111, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=111)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

Vortrag während der EDUG-Konferenz der European DDC users' group am 11.06.2007 in Bern.

0.0023281053 = product of:
  0.013968632 = sum of:
    0.013968632 = weight(_text_:in in 6955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013968632 = score(doc=6955,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 6955, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6955)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper aims to explore the changes in the role of classification and the opportunities presented for classification in the twenty-first century, especially in respect to the development of information technology. The issues arose as part of the EC funded MIRACLE project that represents the foundation for a virtual music library to serve visually impaired people. The MIRACLE partners chose the UDC as the common classification for the converging music catalogues. This paper investigates the nature of adaptation required by each participating library and the way in which the classification is used as a searching tool. Further developments in the use of IT-assisted classification are proposed

0.0023281053 = product of:
  0.013968632 = sum of:
    0.013968632 = weight(_text_:in in 4328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013968632 = score(doc=4328,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 4328, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4328)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose - This short note seeks to respond to Hjørland and Pederson's paper "A substantive theory of classification for information retrieval" which starts from Sparck Jones's, "Some thoughts on classification for retrieval", originally published in 1970. Design/methodology/approach - The note comments on the context in which the 1970 paper was written, and on Hjørland and Pedersen's views, emphasising the need for well-grounded classification theory and application. Findings - The note maintains that text-based, a posteriori, classification, as increasingly found in applications, is likely to be more useful, in general, than a priori classification. Originality/value - The note elaborates on points made in a well-received earlier paper.

0.0022310577 = product of:
  0.0133863455 = sum of:
    0.0133863455 = weight(_text_:in in 4879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0133863455 = score(doc=4879,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 4879, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4879)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The paper gives a short overview of the history of use of UDC in Internet subject gateways (SGs) with an English interface, from 1993 to 2006. There were in total, nine quality controlled SGs that were functional for shorter or longer periods of time. Their typology and functionality is described. Quality SGs have evolved and the role of classification has changed accordingly from supporting subject organization on the interface and automatic categorization of resources, towards supporting a semantic linking, control and vocabulary mapping between different indexing systems in subject hubs and federated SGs. In this period, many SGs ceased to exist and little information remains available regarding their status. SGs currently using UDC, for some part of their resource organization, do not use a UDC subject hierarchy at the interface and its role in resource indexing has become more difficult to observe. Since 2000, UDC has become more prevalent in East European SGs, portals and hubs, which are outside the scope of this research. This paper is an attempt to provide a record on this particular application of UDC and to offer some consideration of the changes in requirements when it comes to the use of library classification in resource discovery.

0.0021859813 = product of:
  0.013115887 = sum of:
    0.013115887 = weight(_text_:in in 831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013115887 = score(doc=831,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 831, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=831)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The main object of the paper is to demonstrate in detail the role of classification in information retrieval (IR) and the design of classificatory structures by the application of logical division to all forms of the content of records, subject and imaginative. The natural product of such division is a faceted classification. The latter is seen not as a particular kind of library classification but the only viable form enabling the locating and relating of information to be optimally predictable. A detailed exposition of the practical steps in facet analysis is given, drawing on the experience of the new Bliss Classification (BC2). The continued existence of the library as a highly organized information store is assumed. But, it is argued, it must acknowledge the relevance of the revolution in library classification that has taken place. It considers also how alphabetically arranged subject indexes may utilize controlled use of categorical (generically inclusive) and syntactic relations to produce similarly predictable locating and relating systems for IR.

Footnote

Artikel in einem Themenheft: The philosophy of information

0.0021034614 = product of:
  0.012620768 = sum of:
    0.012620768 = weight(_text_:in in 4137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012620768 = score(doc=4137,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 4137, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4137)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

1. Aufl. unter: Aluri, R.D., A. Kemp u. J.J. Boll: Subject analysis in online catalogs. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited 1991. XII,303 S. ISBN 0-87287-670-5

0.0020823204 = product of:
  0.012493922 = sum of:
    0.012493922 = weight(_text_:in in 3826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012493922 = score(doc=3826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 3826, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3826)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0020823204 = product of:
  0.012493922 = sum of:
    0.012493922 = weight(_text_:in in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012493922 = score(doc=3061,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This document describes in brief how to express the content and structure of a classification scheme, and metadata about a classification scheme, in RDF using the SKOS vocabulary. RDF allows data to be linked to and/or merged with other RDF data by semantic web applications. The Semantic Web, which is based on the Resource Description Framework (RDF), provides a common framework that allows data to be shared and reused across application, enterprise, and community boundaries. Publishing classifications schemes in SKOS will unify the great many of existing classification efforts in the framework of the Semantic Web.

0.0020609628 = product of:
  0.012365777 = sum of:
    0.012365777 = weight(_text_:in in 2) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012365777 = score(doc=2,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 2, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In the present work we discuss opportunities, problems, tools and techniques encountered when interconnecting discipline-specific subject classifications, primarily organized as search devices in bibliographic databases, with general classifications originally devised for book shelving in public libraries. We first state the fundamental distinction between topical (or subject) classifications and object classifications. Then we trace the structural limitations that have constrained subject classifications since their library origins, and the devices that were used to overcome the gap with genuine knowledge representation. After recalling some general notions on structure, dynamics and interferences of subject classifications and of the objects they refer to, we sketch a synthetic overview on discipline-specific classifications in Mathematics, Computing and Physics, on one hand, and on general classifications on the other. In this setting we present The Scientific Classifications Page, which collects groups of Web pages produced by a pool of software tools for developing hypertextual presentations of single or paired subject classifications from sequential source files, as well as facilities for gathering information from KWIC lists of classification descriptions. Further we propose a concept-oriented methodology for interconnecting subject classifications, with the concrete support of a relational analysis of the whole Mathematics Subject Classification through its evolution since 1959. Finally, we recall a very basic method for interconnection provided by coreference in bibliographic records among index elements from different systems, and point out the advantages of establishing the conditions of a more widespread application of such a method. A part of these contents was presented under the title Mathematics Subject Classification and related Classifications in the Digital World at the Eighth International Conference Crimea 2001, "Libraries and Associations in the Transient World: New Technologies and New Forms of Cooperation", Sudak, Ukraine, June 9-17, 2001, in a special session on electronic libraries, electronic publishing and electronic information in science chaired by Bernd Wegner, Editor-in-Chief of Zentralblatt MATH.

0.0020609628 = product of:
  0.012365777 = sum of:
    0.012365777 = weight(_text_:in in 2191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012365777 = score(doc=2191,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 2191, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2191)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In the Internet information space, advanced information retrieval (IR) methods and automatic text processing are used in conjunction with traditional knowledge organization systems (KOS). New information technology provides a platform for better KOS publishing, exploitation and sharing both for human and machine use. Networked KOS services are now being planned and developed as powerful tools for resource discovery. They will enable automatic contextualisation, interpretation and query matching to different indexing languages. The Semantic Web promises to be an environment in which the quality of semantic relationships in bibliographic classification systems can be fully exploited. Their use in the networked environment is, however, limited by the fact that they are not prepared or made available for advanced machine processing. The UDC was chosen for this research because of its widespread use and its long-term presence in online information retrieval systems. It was also the first system to be used for the automatic classification of Internet resources, and the first to be made available as a classification tool on the Web. The objective of this research is to establish the advantages of using UDC for information retrieval in a networked environment, to highlight the problems of automation and classification exchange, and to offer possible solutions. The first research question was is there enough evidence of the use of classification on the Internet to justify further development with this particular environment in mind? The second question is what are the automation requirements for the full exploitation of UDC and its exchange? The third question is which areas are in need of improvement and what specific recommendations can be made for implementing the UDC in a networked environment? A summary of changes required in the management and development of the UDC to facilitate its full adaptation for future use is drawn from this analysis.

0.0019955188 = product of:
  0.011973113 = sum of:
    0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 2696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011973113 = score(doc=2696,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 2696, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2696)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The structure and use of the classification for books on the amazon.com website are described and analyzed. The contents of this very large website are changing constantly and the access mechanisms have the main purpose of enabling searchers to find books for purchase. This includes finding books the searcher knows about at the start of the search, as well as those that might present themselves in the course of searching and that are related in some way. Underlying the many access paths to books is a classification scheme comprising a rich network of terms in an enumerative and multihierarchical structure.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.8

Source

Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas

0.0019955188 = product of:
  0.011973113 = sum of:
    0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 3991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011973113 = score(doc=3991,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 3991, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3991)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Although researchers have theorized the critical importance of classification in the organization of information, the classification approach seems to have given way to the alphabetical subject approach in retrieval tools widely used in libraries, and research an how users utilize classification or classification-like arrangements in information seeking has been scant. To better understand whether searchers consider classificatory structures a viable alternative to information retrieval, this article reports an a study of how 24 library and information science students used Yahoo! directories, a popular search service resembling classification, in completing an assigned simple task. Several issues emerged from the students' reporting of their search process and a comparison between hierarchical navigation and keyword searching: citation order of facets, precision vs. recall, and other factors influencing searchers' successes and preferences. The latter included search expertise, knowledge of the discipline, and time required to complete the search. Without a definitive conclusion, we suggest a number of directoons for further research.

0.0019955188 = product of:
  0.011973113 = sum of:
    0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011973113 = score(doc=688,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

At the end of 2005, impending digitization efforts and several developments related to the creation of access and discovery tools for informational and cultural objects resulted in a series of responses that continue to ripple throughout the library, museum and archive communities. These developments have broad implications for all three communities because of the goals shared by each in the creation of description, control and enhanced access to informational and cultural objects. This position paper will consider new implementations of faceted navigation and browsing features in online catalogs. It is also a response to challenges to develop interwoven approaches to the study of information seeking and the design and implementation of search and discovery systems. Urgently needed during this time of experimentation, development and implementation is a framework for system evaluation and critical analysis of needed and missing features that is grounded in traditional principles, borne out by practice. Such a framework could extend feature analysis protocols established during the early years of online catalog development.