Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[1980 TO 1990}
  1. Kumar, K.: Theoretical bases for universal classification systems (1982) 0.03 
    0.027973054 = product of:
  0.055946108 = sum of:
    0.055946108 = product of:
      0.08391916 = sum of:
        0.07679551 = weight(_text_:k in 34) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07679551 = score(doc=34,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16225883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.47329018 = fieldWeight in 34, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=34)
        0.007123646 = weight(_text_:s in 34) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007123646 = score(doc=34,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 34, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=34)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Pages
    S.190-197
  2. Feibleman, J.K.: Theory of integrative levels (1985) 0.01 
    0.009652208 = product of:
  0.019304415 = sum of:
    0.019304415 = product of:
      0.028956622 = sum of:
        0.025598504 = weight(_text_:k in 3637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025598504 = score(doc=3637,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16225883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.15776339 = fieldWeight in 3637, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3637)
        0.003358119 = weight(_text_:s in 3637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003358119 = score(doc=3637,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.06795235 = fieldWeight in 3637, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3637)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In the early 1960s, the Classification Research Group in London (q.v.) had reached the point in its experimentation with faceted classification systems where some kind of amalgamation of individual schemes was needed. They sought a unifying principle or set of principles that would provide a basis for a general system. The individual faceted schemes would not merge; what was central to one subject was fringe to another, but the fringes did not coalesce. In looking farther afield, they discovered the theory of "integrative levels" set forth by James K. Feibleman, Chairman and Professor of Philosophy at Tulane University until 1969 and author of forty-five books and more than 175 articles in various fields of philosophy. Feibleman's research concerned the development of the sciences considered in terms of an organizing principle. In the physical sciences, one Gould begin with subparticles and work up to atoms, molecules, and molecular assemblages, interpolating the biological equivalents. Feibleman separates the various levels by use of a "no return" device: "each level organizes the level or levels below it plus one emergent quality." The process is not reversible without loss of identity. A dog, in his system, is no longer a dog when it has been run over by a car; the smashed parts cannot be put together again to function as a dog. The theory of integrative levels is an interesting one. The levels from subparticles to clusters of galaxies or from nuclei to organisms are relatively clearly defined. A discipline, such as any of the ones comprising the "hard sciences," is made up of integrative levels. Research is cumulative so that scholars are ready to contribute when very young. Classification in these fields can make good use of the theory of integrative levels-in fact it should do so. It would appear that the method is more difficult to apply in the social sciences and humanities. This appearance may, however, be superficial. Almost all past happenings are irrevocable; one cannot recall the French Revolution and re-fight it. Any academic discipline that moves an over time does not usually return to an earlier position, even when there are schools of thought involved. Philosophy may have "neo-" this or that, but the subsequent new is not the same as the previous new. One has only to look at the various kinds of neo-Platonists that arise from time to time to realize that. Physical science recognizes a series of paradigms in changing its methodology over time and a similar situation may also turn out to be true in cognitive science." If this should turn out to be the case, integrative levels would probably have a part in that field as weIl.
    Footnote
    Original in: British journal for the philosophy of science 5(1954) S.59-66.
    Pages
    S.136-143
  3. Foskett, D.J.: Classification and integrative levels (1985) 0.01 
    0.008445682 = product of:
  0.016891364 = sum of:
    0.016891364 = product of:
      0.025337046 = sum of:
        0.022398692 = weight(_text_:k in 3639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022398692 = score(doc=3639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16225883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.13804297 = fieldWeight in 3639, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3639)
        0.0029383542 = weight(_text_:s in 3639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0029383542 = score(doc=3639,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.059458308 = fieldWeight in 3639, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3639)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Very interesting experimental work was done by Douglas Foskett and other British classificationists during the fifteen-year period following the end of World War II. The research was effective in demonstrating that it was possible to make very sophisticated classification systems for virtually any subject-systems suitable for experts and for the general user needing a detailed subject classification. The success of these special systems led to consideration of the possibility of putting them together to form a new general classification system. To do such a thing would require a general, overall framework of some kind, since systems limited to a special subject are easier to construct because one does not have to worry about including all of the pertinent facets needed for a general system. Individual subject classifications do not automatically coalesce into a general pattern. For example, what is central to one special classification might be fringe in another or in several others. Fringe terminologies may not coincide in terms of logical relationships. Homographs and homonyms may not rear their ugly heads until attempts at merger are made. Foskett points out that even identifying a thing in terms of a noun or verb involves different assumptions in approach. For these and other reasons, it made sense to look for existing work in fields where the necessary framework already existed. Foskett found the rudiments of such a system in a number of writings, culminating in a logical system called "integrative levels" suggested by James K. Feibleman (q.v.). This system consists of a set of advancing conceptual levels relating to the apparent organization of nature. These levels are irreversible in that if one once reached a certain level there was no going back. Foskett points out that with higher levels and greater complexity in structure the analysis needed to establish valid levels becomes much more difficult, especially as Feibleman stipulates that a higher level must not be reducible to a lower one. (That is, one cannot put Humpty Dumpty together again.) Foskett is optimistic to the extent of suggesting that references from level to level be made upwards, with inductive reasoning, a system used by Derek Austin (q.v.) for making reference structures in PRECIS. Though the method of integrative levels so far has not been used successfully with the byproducts of human social behavior and thought, so much has been learned about these areas during the past twenty years that Foskett may yet be correct in his optimism. Foskett's name has Jong been associated with classification in the social sciences. As with many of the British classificationists included in this book, he has been a member of the Classification Research Group for about forty years. Like the others, he continues to contribute to the field.
    Footnote
    Original in: The Sayers memorial volume: essays in librarianship im memory of William Charles Berwick Sayers. London: The Library Association 1961. S.136-150.
    Pages
    S.210-220
  4. Foskett, D.J.; Bury, S.: Concept organisation and universal classification schemes (1982) 0.00 
    0.0016790595 = product of:
  0.003358119 = sum of:
    0.003358119 = product of:
      0.010074357 = sum of:
        0.010074357 = weight(_text_:s in 17) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010074357 = score(doc=17,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.20385705 = fieldWeight in 17, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=17)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Pages
    S.35-43
  5. McLachlan, H.V.: Buchanan, Locke and Wittgenstein on classification (1981) 0.00 
    0.0013851533 = product of:
  0.0027703065 = sum of:
    0.0027703065 = product of:
      0.00831092 = sum of:
        0.00831092 = weight(_text_:s in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00831092 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.16817348 = fieldWeight in 1781, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1781)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of information science. 3(1981), S.191-195
  6. Austin, D.: Basic concept classes and primitive relations (1982) 0.00 
    0.0011872743 = product of:
  0.0023745487 = sum of:
    0.0023745487 = product of:
      0.007123646 = sum of:
        0.007123646 = weight(_text_:s in 6580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007123646 = score(doc=6580,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 6580, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6580)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Pages
    S.86-94
  7. Frohmann, B.P.: ¬An investigation of the semantic bases of some theoretical principles of classification proposed by Austin and the CRG (1983) 0.00 
    0.0011872743 = product of:
  0.0023745487 = sum of:
    0.0023745487 = product of:
      0.007123646 = sum of:
        0.007123646 = weight(_text_:s in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007123646 = score(doc=318,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 318, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=318)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 4(1983) no.1, S.11-27
  8. Bury, S.: Comparison of classification schedules for libraries (1980) 0.00 
    0.001119373 = product of:
  0.002238746 = sum of:
    0.002238746 = product of:
      0.006716238 = sum of:
        0.006716238 = weight(_text_:s in 1603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006716238 = score(doc=1603,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.1359047 = fieldWeight in 1603, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1603)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Library science with a slant to documentation. 17(1980), S.73-82
  9. Oeser, E.: ¬The two systems of knowledge organization : on the characteristics and foundations of a universal background system (1982) 0.00 
    9.893953E-4 = product of:
  0.0019787906 = sum of:
    0.0019787906 = product of:
      0.0059363716 = sum of:
        0.0059363716 = weight(_text_:s in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0059363716 = score(doc=50,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.120123915 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Pages
    S.41-51
  10. Gödert, W.: Bibliothekarische Klassifikationssysteme und on-line-Kataloge : Grundlagen und Anwendungen (1987) 0.00 
    7.915163E-4 = product of:
  0.0015830325 = sum of:
    0.0015830325 = product of:
      0.0047490974 = sum of:
        0.0047490974 = weight(_text_:s in 4576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047490974 = score(doc=4576,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 4576, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4576)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 11(1987) H.2, S.152-166
  11. Beghtol, C.: Semantic validity : concepts of warrants in bibliographic classification systems (1986) 0.00 
    6.996081E-4 = product of:
  0.0013992162 = sum of:
    0.0013992162 = product of:
      0.0041976487 = sum of:
        0.0041976487 = weight(_text_:s in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0041976487 = score(doc=3487,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Vgl.: Kwasnik, B.H.: Semantic warrant: a pivotal concept for our field. In: Knowledge organization. 37(2010) no.2, S.106-110.
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 30(1986), S.109-125
  12. Weinberger, O.: Begriffsstruktur und Klassifikation (1980) 0.00 
    6.9257664E-4 = product of:
  0.0013851533 = sum of:
    0.0013851533 = product of:
      0.00415546 = sum of:
        0.00415546 = weight(_text_:s in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00415546 = score(doc=1440,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 1440, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1440)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Pages
    S.316-326
  13. Ranganathan, S.R.: Facet analysis: fundamental categories (1985) 0.00 
    6.9257664E-4 = product of:
  0.0013851533 = sum of:
    0.0013851533 = product of:
      0.00415546 = sum of:
        0.00415546 = weight(_text_:s in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00415546 = score(doc=3631,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Among the theorists in the field of subject analysis in the twentieth century, none has been more influential than S. R. Ranganathan (1892-1972) of India, a mathematician by training who turned to librarianship and made some of the most far-reaching contributions to the theory of librarianship in general and subject analysis in particular. Dissatisfied with both the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Universal Decimal Classification, Ranganathan set out to develop his own system. His Colon Classification was first published in 1933 and went through six editions; the seventh edition was in progress when Ranganathan died in 1972. In the course of developing the Colon Classification, Ranganathan formulated a body of classification theory which was published in numerous writings, of which the best known are Elements of Library Classification (1945; 3rd ed., 1962) and Prolegomena to Library Classification (1967). Among the principles Ranganathan established, the most powerful and influential are those relating to facet analysis. Ranganathan demonstrated that facet analysis (breaking down subjects into their component parts) and synthesis (recombining these parts to fit the documents) provide the most viable approach to representing the contents of documents. Although the idea and use of facets, though not always called by that name, have been present for a long time (for instance, in the Dewey Decimal Classification and Charles A. Cutter's Expansive Classification), Ranganathan was the person who systematized the ideas and established principles for them. For his Colon Classification, Ranganathan identified five fundamental categories: Personality (P), Material (M), Energy (E), Space (S) and Time (T) and the citation order PMEST based an the idea of decreasing concreteness.
    Footnote
    Original in: Ranganathan, S.R.: Elements of library classification. 3rd ed. Bombay: Asia Publishing House 1962. S.82-89
    Pages
    S.86-93
  14. Bliss, H.E.: ¬A bibliographic classification : principles and definitions (1985) 0.00 
    6.854732E-4 = product of:
  0.0013709464 = sum of:
    0.0013709464 = product of:
      0.0041128392 = sum of:
        0.0041128392 = weight(_text_:s in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0041128392 = score(doc=3621,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.0832243 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Henry Evelyn Bliss (1870-1955) devoted several decades of his life to the study of classification and the development of the Bibliographic Classification scheme while serving as a librarian in the College of the City of New York. In the course of the development of the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss developed a body of classification theory published in a number of articles and books, among which the best known are The Organization of Knowledge and the System of the Sciences (1929), Organization of Knowledge in Libraries and the Subject Approach to Books (1933; 2nd ed., 1939), and the lengthy preface to A Bibliographic Classification (Volumes 1-2, 1940; 2nd ed., 1952). In developing the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss carefully established its philosophical and theoretical basis, more so than was attempted by the makers of other classification schemes, with the possible exception of S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.) and his Colon Classification. The basic principles established by Bliss for the Bibliographic Classification are: consensus, collocation of related subjects, subordination of special to general and gradation in specialty, and the relativity of classes and of classification (hence alternative location and alternative treatment). In the preface to the schedules of A Bibliographic Classification, Bliss spells out the general principles of classification as weIl as principles specifically related to his scheme. The first volume of the schedules appeared in 1940. In 1952, he issued a second edition of the volume with a rewritten preface, from which the following excerpt is taken, and with the addition of a "Concise Synopsis," which is also included here to illustrate the principles of classificatory structure. In the excerpt reprinted below, Bliss discusses the correlation between classes, concepts, and terms, as weIl as the hierarchical structure basic to his classification scheme. In his discussion of cross-classification, Bliss recognizes the "polydimensional" nature of classification and the difficulties inherent in the two-dimensional approach which is characteristic of linear classification. This is one of the earliest works in which the multidimensional nature of classification is recognized. The Bibliographic Classification did not meet with great success in the United States because the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Library of Congress Classification were already weIl ensconced in American libraries by then. Nonetheless, it attracted considerable attention in the British Commonwealth and elsewhere in the world. A committee was formed in Britain which later became the Bliss Classification Association. A faceted edition of the scheme has been in preparation under the direction of J. Mills and V. Broughton. Several parts of this new edition, entitled Bliss Bibliographic Classification, have been published.
    Footnote
    Original in: Bliss, H.E.: A bibliographic classification extended by systematic auxuliary schedules for composite specification and notation. vols 1-2. 2nd ed. New York: Wilson 1952. S.3-11.
    Pages
    S.75-85
  15. Vickery, B.C.: Systematic subject indexing (1985) 0.00 
    6.854732E-4 = product of:
  0.0013709464 = sum of:
    0.0013709464 = product of:
      0.0041128392 = sum of:
        0.0041128392 = weight(_text_:s in 3636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0041128392 = score(doc=3636,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.0832243 = fieldWeight in 3636, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3636)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Brian C. Vickery, Director and Professor, School of Library, Archive and Information Studies, University College, London, is a prolific writer on classification and information retrieval. This paper was one of the earliest to present initial efforts by the Classification Research Group (q.v.). In it he clearly outlined the need for classification in subject indexing, which, at the time he wrote, was not a commonplace understanding. In fact, some indexing systems were made in the first place specifically to avoid general classification systems which were out of date in all fast-moving disciplines, especially in the "hard" sciences. Vickery picked up Julia Pettee's work (q.v.) an the concealed classification in subject headings (1947) and added to it, mainly adopting concepts from the work of S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.). He had already published a paper an notation in classification, pointing out connections between notation, words, and the concepts which they represent. He was especially concerned about the structure of notational symbols as such symbols represented relationships among subjects. Vickery also emphasized that index terms cover all aspects of a subject so that, in addition to having a basis in classification, the ideal index system should also have standardized nomenclature, as weIl as show evidence of a systematic classing of elementary terms. The necessary linkage between system and terms should be one of a number of methods, notably:
    Footnote
    Original in: Journal of documentation 9(1953) S.48-57.
    Pages
    S.125-135
  16. Rescheleit, W.; Menner, L.: Vergleich der Wissensrepräsentationssprache FRL mit Dezimalklassifikation und Facettenklassifikation (1986) 0.00 
    5.936372E-4 = product of:
  0.0011872743 = sum of:
    0.0011872743 = product of:
      0.003561823 = sum of:
        0.003561823 = weight(_text_:s in 1555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003561823 = score(doc=1555,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1555, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1555)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Pages
    S.68-76
  17. Batty, D.: ¬The future of DDC in the perspective of current classification research (1989) 0.00 
    5.936372E-4 = product of:
  0.0011872743 = sum of:
    0.0011872743 = product of:
      0.003561823 = sum of:
        0.003561823 = weight(_text_:s in 2070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003561823 = score(doc=2070,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2070, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2070)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Pages
    S.6-11
  18. Classification Research Group: ¬The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval (1985) 0.00 
    5.1410496E-4 = product of:
  0.0010282099 = sum of:
    0.0010282099 = product of:
      0.0030846295 = sum of:
        0.0030846295 = weight(_text_:s in 3640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0030846295 = score(doc=3640,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.062418222 = fieldWeight in 3640, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3640)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The technique chosen was S. R. Ranganathan's facet analysis (q.v.). This method works from the bottom up: a term is categorized according to its parent class, as a kind, state, property, action, operation upon something, result of an Operation, agent, and so on. These modes of definition represent characteristics of division. Following the publication of this paper, the group worked for over ten years developing systems following this general pattern with various changes and experimental arrangements. Ranganathan's Colon Classification was the original of this type of method, but the Group rejected his contention that there are only five fundamental categories to be found in the knowledge base. They did, in fact, end up with varying numbers of categories in the experimental systems which they ultimately were to make. Notation was also recognized as a problem, being complex, illogical, lengthy, obscure and hard to understand. The Group tried to develop a rationale for notation, both as an ordering and as a finding device. To describe and represent a class, a notation could be long, but as a finding device, brevity would be preferable. The Group was to experiment with this aspect of classification and produce a number of interesting results. The Classification Research Group began meeting informally to discuss classification matters in 1952 and continues to meet, usually in London, to the present day. Most of the British authors whose work is presented in these pages have been members for most of the Group's life and continue in it. The Group maintains the basic position outlined in this paper to the present day. Its experimental approach has resulted in much more information about the nature and functions of classification systems. The ideal system has yet to be found. Classification research is still a promising area. The future calls for more experimentation based an reasoned approaches, following the example set by the Classification Research Group.
    Footnote
    Original in: Proceedings of the International Study Conference on Classification for Information Retrieval held at Beatrice Webb House, Dorking, England, 13th-17th May 1957. London: Aslib 1957, Appendix 2, S.137-147.
    Pages
    S.154-167
  19. Fairthorne, R.A.: Temporal structure in bibliographic classification (1985) 0.00 
    4.1976487E-4 = product of:
  8.3952973E-4 = sum of:
    8.3952973E-4 = product of:
      0.0025185891 = sum of:
        0.0025185891 = weight(_text_:s in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0025185891 = score(doc=3651,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.050964262 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Original in: Ottawa Conference on the Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, Ottawa, 1971. Ed.: Jerzy A Wojceichowski. Pullach: Verlag Dokumentation 1974. S.404-412.
    Pages
    S.356-368

Authors

Languages

  • e 16
  • d 3

Themes