Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.018446533 = product of:
  0.04611633 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=1418,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
    0.039305177 = sum of:
      0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007893822 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
      0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031411353 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Categories, or concepts of high generality representing the most basic kinds of entities in the world, have long been understood to be a fundamental element in the construction of knowledge organization systems (KOSs), particularly faceted ones. Commentators on facet analysis have tended to foreground the role of categories in the structuring of controlled vocabularies and the construction of compound index terms, and the implications of this for subject representation and information retrieval. Less attention has been paid to the variety of ways in which categories can shape the overall architectonic framework of a KOS. This case study explores the range of functions that categories took in structuring various aspects of an early analytico-synthetic KOS, Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI). Within SI, categories not only functioned as mechanisms to partition an index vocabulary into smaller groupings of terms and as elements in the construction of compound index terms but also served as means of defining the units of indexing, or index items, incorporated into an index; determining the organization of card index files and the articulation of the guide card system serving as a navigational aids thereto; and setting structural constraints to the establishment of cross-references between terms. In all these ways, Kaiser's system of categories contributed to the general systematicity of SI.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

Type

a

0.008641724 = product of:
  0.021604309 = sum of:
    0.005898632 = weight(_text_:a in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005898632 = score(doc=1417,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 1417, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1417)
    0.015705677 = product of:
      0.031411353 = sum of:
        0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031411353 = score(doc=1417,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1417, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1417)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In recent years, Hjørland has developed a typology of basic epistemological approaches to KO that identifies four basic positions - empiricism, rationalism, historicism/hermeneutics, and pragmatism -with which to characterize the epistemological bases and methodological orientation of KOSs. Although scholars of KO have noted that the design of a single KOS may incorporate epistemological-methodological features from more than one of these approaches, studies of concrete examples of epistemologico-methodological eclecticism have been rare. In this paper, we consider the phenomenon of epistemologico-methodological eclecticism in one theoretically significant family of KOSs - namely analytico-synthetic, or faceted, KOSs - by examining two cases - Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI) and Brian Vickery's method of facet analysis (FA) for document classification. We show that both of these systems combined classical features of rationalism with elements of empiricism and pragmatism and argue that such eclecticism is the norm, rather than the exception, for such KOSs in general.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

Type

a

0.004915534 = product of:
  0.012288835 = sum of:
    0.008341924 = weight(_text_:a in 5800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008341924 = score(doc=5800,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 5800, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5800)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 5800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=5800,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5800, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5800)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan's theory of classification spans a number of works over a number of decades. And while he was devoted to solving many problems in the practice of librarianship, and is known as the father of library science in India (Garfield, 1984), his work in classification revolves around one central concern. His classification research addressed the problems that arose from introducing new ideas into a scheme for classification, while maintaining a meaningful hierarchical and systematically arranged order of classes. This is because hierarchical and systematically arranged classes are the defining characteristic of useful classification. To lose this order is to through the addition of new classes is to introduce confusion, if not chaos, and to move toward a useless classification - or at least one that requires complete revision. In the following chapter, I outline the stages, and the elements of those stages, in Ranganathan's thought on classification from 1926-1972, as well as posthumous work that continues his agenda. And while facets figure prominently in all of these stages; but for Ranganathan to achieve his goal, he must continually add to this central feature of his theory of classification. I will close this chapter with an outline of persistent problems that represent research fronts for the field. Chief among these are what to do about scheme change and the open question about the rigor of information modeling in light of semantic web developments.

Type

a

0.004303226 = product of:
  0.010758064 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 3183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=3183,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3183, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3183)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 3183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=3183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3183, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3183)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Division is obviously important to Knowledge Organization. Typically, an organizational infrastructure might acknowledge three types of connecting relationships: class hierarchies, where some classes are subclasses of others, partitive hierarchies, where some items are parts of others, and instantiation, where some items are members of some classes (see Z39.19 ANSI/NISO 2005 as an example). The first two of these involve division (the third, instantiation, does not involve division). Logical division would usually be a part of hierarchical classification systems, which, in turn, are central to shelving in libraries, to subject classification schemes, to controlled vocabularies, and to thesauri. Partitive hierarchies, and partitive division, are often essential to controlled vocabularies, thesauri, and subject tagging systems. Partitive hierarchies also relate to the bearers of information; for example, a journal would typically have its component articles as parts and, in turn, they might have sections as their parts, and, of course, components might be arrived at by partitive division (see Tillett 2009 as an illustration). Finally, verbal division, disambiguating homographs, is basic to controlled vocabularies. Thus Division is a broad and relevant topic. This article, though, is going to focus on Logical Division.

Type

a

0.002311782 = product of:
  0.01155891 = sum of:
    0.01155891 = weight(_text_:a in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01155891 = score(doc=1131,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 1131, 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=1131)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Type

a

0.0016683849 = product of:
  0.008341924 = sum of:
    0.008341924 = weight(_text_:a in 4154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008341924 = score(doc=4154,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 4154, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4154)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The identification and contextual definition of concepts is the core of knowledge organization. The full expression of comprehension is accomplished through the use of an extension device called the facet. A facet is a category of dimensional characteristics that cross the hierarchical array of concepts to provide extension, or breadth, to the contexts in which they are discovered or expressed in knowledge organization systems. The use of the facet in knowledge organization has a rich history arising in the mid-nineteenth century. As it has matured through more than a century of application, the notion of the facet in knowledge organization has taken on a variety of meanings, from that of simple categories used in web search engines to the more sophisticated idea of intersecting dimensions of knowledge. This book describes the state of the art of the understanding of facets in knowledge organization today.

Content

Inhalt: Richard P. Smiraglia: A Brief Introduction to Facets in Knowledge Organization / Kathryn La Barre: Interrogating Facet Theory: Decolonizing Knowledge Organization / Joseph T. Tennis: Never Facets Alone: The Evolving Thought and Persistent Problems in Ranganathan's Theories of Classification / M. P. Satija and Dong-Guen Oh: The DDC and the Knowledge Categories: Dewey did Faceting without Knowing It / Claudio Gnoli: Classifying Phenomena Part 3: Facets / Rick Szostak: Facet Analysis Without Facet Indicators / Elizabeth Milonas: An Examination of Facets within Search Engine Result Pages / Richard P. Smiraglia: Facets for Clustering and Disambiguation: The Domain Discourse of Facets in Knowledge Organization

0.0016346768 = product of:
  0.008173384 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 4153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=4153,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4153, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4153)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Type

a

0.0016346768 = product of:
  0.008173384 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 4155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=4155,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4155, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4155)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Type

a

0.0016346768 = product of:
  0.008173384 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 4157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=4157,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4157, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4157)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Type

a

0.0016346768 = product of:
  0.008173384 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 4158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=4158,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4158, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4158)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Type

a

0.0016346768 = product of:
  0.008173384 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 4159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=4159,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4159, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4159)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Type

a

0.0016346768 = product of:
  0.008173384 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 4160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=4160,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4160, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4160)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Type

a

0.0015230201 = product of:
  0.0076151006 = sum of:
    0.0076151006 = weight(_text_:a in 4850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076151006 = score(doc=4850,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 4850, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4850)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Faceted classification is based on the core ideas that there are kinds or categories of concepts, and that compound, or non-elemental, concepts, which are ubiquitous in classification and subject annotation, are to be identified as being constructions of concepts of the different kinds. The categories of concepts are facets, and the individual concepts, which are instances of those facets, are foci. Usually, there are constraints on how the foci can be combined into the compound concepts. What is standard is that any combination of foci is permitted from kind-to-kind across facets, but that the foci within a facet are restricted in their use by virtue of being dependent on each other, either by being exclusive of each other or by bearing some kind of hierarchical relationship to each other. Thus faceted classification is typically considered to be a synthetic classification consisting of orthogonal facets which themselves are composed individually either of exclusive foci or of a hierarchy of foci. This paper addresses in particular this second exclusive-or-hierarchical foci condition. It evaluates the arguments for the condition and finds them not conclusive. It suggests that wider synthetic constructions should be allowed on foci within a facet.

Type

a

9.6324255E-4 = product of:
  0.0048162127 = sum of:
    0.0048162127 = weight(_text_:a in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0048162127 = score(doc=3849,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Various fields, each with its own theories, techniques, and tools, are concerned with identifying and representing the conceptual structure of specific knowledge domains. This paper compares facet analysis, an analytic technique coming out of knowledge organization (especially as undertaken by members of the Classification Research Group (CRG)), with semantic frame analysis, an analytic technique coming out of lexical semantics (especially as undertaken by the developers of Frame-Net) The investigation addresses three questions: 1) how do CRG-style facet analysis and semantic frame analysis characterize the conceptual structures that they identify?; 2) how similar are the techniques they use?; and, 3) how similar are the conceptual structures they produce? Facet analysis is concerned with the logical categories underlying the terminology of an entire field, while semantic frame analysis is concerned with the participant-and-prop structure manifest in sentences about a type of situation or event. When their scope of application is similar, as, for example, in the areas of the performing arts or education, the resulting facets and semantic frame elements often bear striking resemblance, without being the same; facets are more often expressed as semantic types, while frame elements are more often expressed as roles.

Type

a