Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012245135 = product of:
  0.02449027 = sum of:
    0.01963775 = weight(_text_:j in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01963775 = score(doc=3621,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1398433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044010527 = queryNorm
        0.14042683 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
    0.0048525194 = product of:
      0.009705039 = sum of:
        0.009705039 = weight(_text_:der in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009705039 = score(doc=3621,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.098309256 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044010527 = queryNorm
            0.09871948 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

Theme

Geschichte der Klassifikationssysteme

0.007943452 = product of:
  0.03177381 = sum of:
    0.03177381 = product of:
      0.06354762 = sum of:
        0.06354762 = weight(_text_:der in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06354762 = score(doc=1440,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.098309256 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044010527 = queryNorm
            0.6464053 = fieldWeight in 1440, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1440)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Klassifikation kann sich auf verschiedene Gegenstandsbereiche beziehen. Sie ist im Prinzip eine extensionale Vorgangsweise resp. ein extensionales Gebilde auch dann, wenn ihr Gegenstand begriffliche Gebilde bzw. Wissen (Wissensbestandteile) sind. Die Erstellung dieses extensionalen Gebildes, das wir 'Klassat' nennen, beruht auf begrifflichen Analysen. Die Probleme der Begriffstrukturen, der Definitionen und der verschiedenen Eigentümlichkeiten gewisser Begriffe der pragmatischen Sprachen stellen daher Grundlagenprobleme der Klassifikationstheorie dar. Hieraus ergibt sich die Aufgabenstellung: Skizzzierung der logischen Grundstruktur der Klassifikation, Hinweis auf die Relevanz methodologischer Momente der Problemsituation für das Klassieren und auf gewisse strukturelle und semantische Eigentümlichkeiten der Begriffsapparatur der modernen Wissenschaften und der Umgangssprache, die Probleme der Klassifizierungsaufgaben mit such bringen und die bewirken, daß die Klassifikationen oft als praktische Annäherungen anzusehen sind

Source

Wissensstrukturen und Ordnungsmuster. Proc. der 4. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Salzburg, 16.-19.4.1980. Red.: W. Dahlberg

0.004202405 = product of:
  0.01680962 = sum of:
    0.01680962 = product of:
      0.03361924 = sum of:
        0.03361924 = weight(_text_:der in 4576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03361924 = score(doc=4576,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.098309256 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044010527 = queryNorm
            0.34197432 = fieldWeight in 4576, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4576)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In diesem Beitrag beabsichtigen wir, einen Überblick über den derzeitigen Stand der bibliothekarischen Klassifikationstheorie zu geben. Die Darstellung ist angelehnt an die 1985 erschienene Norm DIN 32 705,Erstellung und Weiterentwicklung von Klassifikationssystemen', stellt jedoch die Problematik bibliothekarischer Klassifikationssysteme in den Vordergrund. In einem zweiten Teil beschäftigen wir uns mit Problemen von Klassifikationssystemen in typischen bibliothekarischen Anwendungsbereichen. Der Schwerpunkt liegt dabei auf dem Online-Katalog; es wird ein Vorschlag zur Verwendung von Facettenklassifikationen diskutiert. Abschließend werden Fragen der kooperativen klassifikatorischen Inhaltserschließung gestreift.

0.0036393893 = product of:
  0.014557557 = sum of:
    0.014557557 = product of:
      0.029115114 = sum of:
        0.029115114 = weight(_text_:der in 1555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029115114 = score(doc=1555,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.098309256 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044010527 = queryNorm
            0.29615843 = fieldWeight in 1555, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1555)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Beim Vergleich von Klassifikationen mit Frame-Wissensbasen für Expertensysteme zeigen sich einige elementare Gemeinsamkeiten: Beide haben das Ziel einer geordneten Darstellung von Wissen. Beide bilden dazu Klassen und weisen hierarchische Beziehungen zwischen diesen Klassen auf. Anahnd der Wissensrepräsentationssprache FRL (Frame Representation Language) wird untersucht, inwieweit beide Systeme sich in das jeweils andere übertragen lassen. Die FRL speichert Wissen in einer speziellen Datenstruktur, den Frames, die aus einem Framenamen, der den jeweiligen Begriff bezeichnet, und Slots, die die Eigenschaften des Begriffs enthalten, bestehen. Eine effektive Speicherung des Wissens wird dadurch erreicht, daß die Frames in einer polyhierarchischen Struktur geordnet sind und in generischer Relation zueinander stehen müssen. Über die generische Relation lassen sich die Eigenschaften höherer Begriffe auf ihre Subklassen vererben. Es werden die Ergebnisse eines Versuchs dargestellt, Elemente bestehender Universalklassifikationen (DK, BC2) in die FRL zu übertragen

Source

Die Klassifikation und ihr Umfeld: Proc. 10. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Münster, 18.-21.6.1986. Hrsg.: P.O. Degens

0.0010614885 = product of:
  0.004245954 = sum of:
    0.004245954 = product of:
      0.008491908 = sum of:
        0.008491908 = weight(_text_:der in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008491908 = score(doc=3631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.098309256 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044010527 = queryNorm
            0.08637954 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Geschichte der Klassifikationssysteme