Search (42 results, page 1 of 3)

0.041784775 = product of:
  0.10446194 = sum of:
    0.054712474 = weight(_text_:books in 4406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054712474 = score(doc=4406,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.18689486 = fieldWeight in 4406, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4406)
    0.049749464 = weight(_text_:22 in 4406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049749464 = score(doc=4406,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2121093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.23454636 = fieldWeight in 4406, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4406)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

"Am 16. August 2005 fand in Oslo im Rahmen der heurigen IFLA-Konferenz das alljährliche Treffen der DDC-Übersetzer und der weltweiten DeweyAnwender-Institutionen (Nationalbibliotheken, Ersteller von Nationalbibliografien) statt. Die im Sommer 2005 bereits abgeschlossene deutsche Übersetzung wird in der Druckfassung Ende des Jahres in 4 Bänden vorliegen, beim K. G. Saur Verlag in München erscheinen (ISBN 3-598-11651-9) und 2006 vom ebenfalls erstmals ins Deutsche übersetzten DDC-Lehrbuch (ISBN 3-598-11748-5) begleitet. Pläne für neu startende Übersetzungen der DDC 22 gibt es für folgende Sprachen: Arabisch (mit der wachsenden Notwendigkeit, Klasse 200 Religion zu revidieren), Französisch (es erschien zuletzt eine neue Kurzausgabe 14, nun werden eine vierbändige Druckausgabe und eine frz. Webversion anvisiert), Schwedisch, Vietnamesisch (hierfür wird eine an die Sprache und Schrift angepasste Version des deutschen Übersetzungstools zum Einsatz kommen).
Das Neueste zuerst Die Herausgeber der DDC präsentierten eine neue Informationsplattform "025.431: The Dewey blog"; seit Anfang Juli erreichbar unter http://ddc.typepad.com/. Neu ist auch der fünfsprachige, mit einem Farbleitsystem ausgestattete "DeweyBrowser" von OCLC; der Protoyp führt bereits in einen Katalog von 125.000 e-books und kann unter http://ddcresearch.oclc.org ,i ebooks/fileServer erprobt werden. OCLC bietet seit April 2005 eine neue Current Awareness-Schiene zur DDC mit unterschiedlichen Schwerpunkten an: Dewey Mappings, Dewey News, DeweyTips, Dewey Updates, Deweyjournal (letzteres fängt Themen aus allen 4 Teilbereichen auf); zu subskribieren unter http://www.oclc.org/dewey/syndicated/rss.htm. Wichtig für Freihandaufstellungen Die Segmentierung von Dewey-Notationen wurde reduziert! Ab September 2005 vergibt LoC nur noch ein einziges Segmentierungszeichen, und zwar an der Stelle, an der die jeweilige Notation in der englischen Kurzausgabe endet. Der Beginn einer Teilnotation aus Hilfstafel 1: Standardunterteilungen, wird also nun nicht mehr markiert. Für die Bildung von Standortsignaturen bietet sich das Dewey Cutter Programm an; Downloaden unter www.oclc.org/dewey/support/program.
Allgemein DDC 22 ist im Gegensatz zu den früheren Neuauflagen der Standard Edition eine Ausgabe ohne generelle Überarbeitung einer gesamten Klasse. Sie enthält jedoch zahlreiche Änderungen und Expansionen in fast allen Disziplinen und in vielen Hilfstafeln. Es erschien auch eine Sonderausgabe der Klasse 200, Religion. In der aktuellen Kurzausgabe der DDC 22 (14, aus 2004) sind all diese Neuerungen berücksichtigt. Auch die elektronische Version exisitiert in einer vollständigen (WebDewey) und in einer KurzVariante (Abridged WebDewey) und ist immer auf dem jüngsten Stand der Klassifikation. Ein Tutorial für die Nutzung von WebDewey steht unter www.oclc.org /dewey/ resourcesitutorial zur Verfügung. Der Index enthält in dieser elektronischen Fassung weit mehr zusammengesetzte Notationen und verbale Sucheinstiege (resultierend aus den Titeldaten des "WorldCat") als die Druckausgabe, sowie Mappings zu den aktuellsten Normdatensätzen aus LCSH und McSH. Aktuell Die personelle Zusammensetzung des EPC (Editorial Policy Committee) hat sich im letzten Jahr verändert. Dieses oberste Gremium der DDC hat Prioritäten für den aktuellen Arbeitsplan festgelegt. Es wurde vereinbart, größere Änderungsvorhaben via Dewey-Website künftig wie in einem Stellungnahmeverfahren zur fachlichen Diskussion zu stellen. www.oclc.org/dewey/discussion/."

0.037810978 = product of:
  0.18905488 = sum of:
    0.18905488 = weight(_text_:objects in 2653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18905488 = score(doc=2653,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32193914 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.58723795 = fieldWeight in 2653, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2653)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

An explanation of faceted classification meant for people working in knowledge management. An example given for a high-technology company has the fundamental categories Products, Applications, Organizations, People, Domain objects ("technologies applied in the marketplace in which the organization participates"), Events (i.e. time), and Publications.

0.037517127 = product of:
  0.18758564 = sum of:
    0.18758564 = weight(_text_:books in 2696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18758564 = score(doc=2696,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.6407824 = fieldWeight in 2696, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2696)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.032083675 = product of:
  0.16041838 = sum of:
    0.16041838 = weight(_text_:objects in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16041838 = score(doc=688,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32193914 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.49828792 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.030950053 = product of:
  0.15475026 = sum of:
    0.15475026 = weight(_text_:books in 661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15475026 = score(doc=661,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.5286185 = fieldWeight in 661, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=661)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

LCSH

Classification / Books

Subject

Classification / Books

0.026528616 = product of:
  0.13264307 = sum of:
    0.13264307 = weight(_text_:books in 4252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13264307 = score(doc=4252,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.45310158 = fieldWeight in 4252, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4252)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Presents a pilot study for an Internordic project to monitor the use of online catalogues in the Nordic technological university libraries. Focuses on the use of classification in subject searching, how the UDC is used and the extent of its use. Studies user interaction with the OPACs and improvements to information retrieval in the catalogues using the transaction log method to gather data. The pilot study examnines the TENTTU Books database which is the online union catalogue of the Helsinki Univ. of Technology Library, a multilingual database with true information retrieval. The Internordic study itself will make comparisons between the TENTTU system and the new Virginia Tech Library System. Discusses the users monitored, method of analysis, subject searching in the database, results and how the UDC codes were used. Compares this to other studies conducted in Finland and evaluates the project

0.026260907 = product of:
  0.13130453 = sum of:
    0.13130453 = weight(_text_:22 in 7684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13130453 = score(doc=7684,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2121093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 7684, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7684)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of academic librarianship. 10(1984), S.17-22

0.025011418 = product of:
  0.12505709 = sum of:
    0.12505709 = weight(_text_:books in 2108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12505709 = score(doc=2108,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.42718828 = fieldWeight in 2108, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2108)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.025011418 = product of:
  0.12505709 = sum of:
    0.12505709 = weight(_text_:books in 4962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12505709 = score(doc=4962,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.42718828 = fieldWeight in 4962, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4962)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Subject based classification is an important part of information retrieval, and has a long history in libraries, where a subject taxonomy was used to determine the location of books on the shelves. We have been studying the notion of subject itself, in order to determine a formal ontology of subject for a large scale digital library card catalog system. Deep analysis reveals a lot of ambiguity regarding the usage of subjects in existing systems and terminology, and we attempt to formalize these notions into a single framework for representing it.

0.024815248 = product of:
  0.12407624 = sum of:
    0.12407624 = weight(_text_:books in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12407624 = score(doc=1202,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.42383775 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The concept of c-space is proposed as a visualization schema relating containers of content to cataloging surrogates and classification structures. Possible applications of keyword vector clusters within c-space could include improved retrieval rates through the use of captioning within visual hierarchies, tracings of semantic bleeding among subclasses, and access to buried knowledge within subject-neutral publication containers. The Scholastica Project is described as one example, following a tradition of research dating back to the 1980's. Preliminary focus group assessment indicates that this type of classification rendering may offer digital library searchers enriched entry strategies and an expanded range of re-entry vocabularies. Those of us who work in traditional libraries typically assume that our systems of classification: Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), are descriptive rather than prescriptive. In other words, LCC classes and subclasses approximate natural groupings of texts that reflect an underlying order of knowledge, rather than arbitrary categories prescribed by librarians to facilitate efficient shelving. Philosophical support for this assumption has traditionally been found in a number of places, from the archetypal tree of knowledge, to Aristotelian categories, to the concept of discursive formations proposed by Michel Foucault. Gary P. Radford has elegantly described an encounter with Foucault's discursive formations in the traditional library setting: "Just by looking at the titles on the spines, you can see how the books cluster together...You can identify those books that seem to form the heart of the discursive formation and those books that reside on the margins. Moving along the shelves, you see those books that tend to bleed over into other classifications and that straddle multiple discursive formations. You can physically and sensually experience...those points that feel like state borders or national boundaries, those points where one subject ends and another begins, or those magical places where one subject has morphed into another..."
But what happens to this awareness in a digital library? Can discursive formations be represented in cyberspace, perhaps through diagrams in a visualization interface? And would such a schema be helpful to a digital library user? To approach this question, it is worth taking a moment to reconsider what Radford is looking at. First, he looks at titles to see how the books cluster. To illustrate, I scanned one hundred books on the shelves of a college library under subclass HT 101-395, defined by the LCC subclass caption as Urban groups. The City. Urban sociology. Of the first 100 titles in this sequence, fifty included the word "urban" or variants (e.g. "urbanization"). Another thirty-five used the word "city" or variants. These keywords appear to mark their titles as the heart of this discursive formation. The scattering of titles not using "urban" or "city" used related terms such as "town," "community," or in one case "skyscrapers." So we immediately see some empirical correlation between keywords and classification. But we also see a problem with the commonly used search technique of title-keyword. A student interested in urban studies will want to know about this entire subclass, and may wish to browse every title available therein. A title-keyword search on "urban" will retrieve only half of the titles, while a search on "city" will retrieve just over a third. There will be no overlap, since no titles in this sample contain both words. The only place where both words appear in a common string is in the LCC subclass caption, but captions are not typically indexed in library Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs). In a traditional library, this problem is mitigated when the student goes to the shelf looking for any one of the books and suddenly discovers a much wider selection than the keyword search had led him to expect. But in a digital library, the issue of non-retrieval can be more problematic, as studies have indicated. Micco and Popp reported that, in a study funded partly by the U.S. Department of Education, 65 of 73 unskilled users searching for material on U.S./Soviet foreign relations found some material but never realized they had missed a large percentage of what was in the database.

0.01969568 = product of:
  0.0984784 = sum of:
    0.0984784 = weight(_text_:22 in 6040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0984784 = score(doc=6040,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2121093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:42:47

0.019070936 = product of:
  0.047677338 = sum of:
    0.03126427 = weight(_text_:books in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03126427 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.10679707 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
    0.016413067 = weight(_text_:22 in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016413067 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2121093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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)).

0.018905489 = product of:
  0.09452744 = sum of:
    0.09452744 = weight(_text_:objects in 4327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09452744 = score(doc=4327,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32193914 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 4327, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4327)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The suggestion that classifications for retrieval should be constructed automatically raises some serious problems concerning the sorts of classification which are required, and the way in which formal classification theories should be exploited, given that a retrieval classification is required for a purpose. These difficulties have not been sufficiently considered, and the paper therefore attempts an analysis of them, though no solution of immediate application can be suggested. Starting with the illustrative proposition that a polythetic, multiple, unordered classification is required in automatic thesaurus construction, this is considered in the context of classification in general, where eight sorts of classification can be distinguished, each covering a range of class definitions and class-finding algorithms. The problem which follows is that since there is generally no natural or best classification of a set of objects as such, the evaluation of alternative classifications requires either formal criteria of goodness of fit, or, if a classification is required for a purpose, a precises statement of that purpose. In any case a substantive theory of classification is needed, which does not exist; and since sufficiently precise specifications of retrieval requirements are also lacking, the only currently available approach to automatic classification experiments for information retrieval is to do enough of them

0.018905489 = product of:
  0.09452744 = sum of:
    0.09452744 = weight(_text_:objects in 4392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09452744 = score(doc=4392,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32193914 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 4392, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4392)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper was originally published in 1970 (Journal of documentation. 26(1970), S.89-101), considered the suggestion that classifications for retrieval should be constructed automatically and raised some serious problems concerning the sorts of classification which were required, and the way in which formal classification theories should be exploited, given that a retrieval classification is required for a purpose. These difficulties had not been sufficiently considered, and the paper, therefore, aims to attempt an analysis of them, though no solutions of immediate application could be suggested. Design/methodology/approach - Starting with the illustrative proposition that a polythetic, multiple, unordered classification is required in automatic thesaurus construction, this is considered in the context of classification in general, where eight sorts of classification can be distinguished, each covering a range of class definitions and class-finding algorithms. Findings - Since there is generally no natural or best classification of a set of objects as such, the evaluation of alternative classifications requires either formal criteria of goodness of fit, or, if a classification is required for a purpose, a precise statement of that purpose. In any case a substantive theory of classification is needed, which does not exist; and, since sufficiently precise specifications of retrieval requirements are also lacking, the only currently available approach to automatic classification experiments for information retrieval is to do enough of them. Originality/value - Gives insights into the classification of material for information retrieval.

0.018905489 = product of:
  0.09452744 = sum of:
    0.09452744 = weight(_text_:objects in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09452744 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32193914 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 5895, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5895)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Broughton is one of the key people working on the second edition of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (BC2). Her article has a brief, informative history of facets, then discusses semantic vs. syntactic relationships, standard facets used by Ranganathan and the Classification Research Group, facet analysis and citation order, and how to build subject indexes out of faceted classifications, all with occasional reference to digital environments and hypertext, but never with any specifics. It concludes by saying of faceted classification that the "capacity which it has to create highly sophisticated structures for the accommodation of complex objects suggests that it is worth investigation as an organizational tool for digital materials, and that the results of such investigation would be knowledge structures of unparalleled utility and elegance." How to build them is left to the reader, but this article provides an excellent starting point. It includes an example that shows how general concepts can be applied to a small set of documents and subjects, and how terms can be adapted to suit the material and users

0.018758563 = product of:
  0.09379282 = sum of:
    0.09379282 = weight(_text_:books in 3842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09379282 = score(doc=3842,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.3203912 = fieldWeight in 3842, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3842)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.016413068 = product of:
  0.08206534 = sum of:
    0.08206534 = weight(_text_:22 in 3576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08206534 = score(doc=3576,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2121093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3576, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3576)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

8. 1.2007 12:22:40

0.016413068 = product of:
  0.08206534 = sum of:
    0.08206534 = weight(_text_:22 in 611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08206534 = score(doc=611,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2121093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 611, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=611)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 8.2009 12:54:24

0.015632138 = product of:
  0.07816069 = sum of:
    0.07816069 = weight(_text_:books in 2384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07816069 = score(doc=2384,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.2669927 = fieldWeight in 2384, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2384)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Online displays of bibliographic records in call number order can serve various functions. A literature search showed no papers or books discussing this topic directly. Various displays from online catalogues available via the Internet were examined, as were displays sent to the author by colleagues. A number of the displays were uninformative to the extent that the identification of works associated with call numbers was difficult or impossible without follow-up searching of the individual bibliographic records. Other displays provided information where further searching of the database would not be required for most purposes. Displays noted ranged from displays with call numbers alone, with no bibliographic information, to records including main entry, title, statement of responsibility, place, publisher, and date. Suggestions of useful data elements to be included in displays of bibliographic records in call number order are made for the following functions: shelflisting, cataloguing, catalogue maintenance, reference, public searches, acquisition and collection development, and inventory control. Recommendations are made that the following data elements should be present in call number displays: entire call number as a sequencing element; main entry; entire title proper, and the date. Concern is expressed that the call number filing arrangement be that followed in traditional shelflists, and a suggestion is made that possible consensus on the placement of the data elements within a display be considered in the future

0.015632138 = product of:
  0.07816069 = sum of:
    0.07816069 = weight(_text_:books in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07816069 = score(doc=73,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.2669927 = fieldWeight in 73, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=73)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper examines issues relating to the use of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) in a future development of view-based searching to Online Public Access Catalogues (OPAC). View-based searching systems, exercising the principles of fully faceted classification techniques for both bibliographic and corporate database retrieval applications, are now being applied to utilise Dewey concept hierarchies in a University OPAC. Issues of efficiency and effectiveness in the evolving organisation and classification of information within libraries are examined to explain why fully faceted classification schemes have yet to realise their full potential in libraries. The key to their application in OPACs lies in the use of faceted classification as pre-coordinated indexing and abandoning the single dimension relative ordering of books on shelves. The need to maintain a single relative physical position on a bookshelf is the major source of complexity in classification. Extensive latent benefits will be realised when systematic subject arrangements, providing alternative views onto OPACs, are coupled to view-based browser and search techniques. Time and effort will be saved, and effectiveness increased, as rapid access is provided to the most appropriate information to satisfy the needs of the user. A future for Dewey Classification divorced from its decimal notation is anticipated