Search (44 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Lin, W.-Y.C.: ¬The concept and applications of faceted classifications (2006) 0.02 
    0.019630553 = product of:
  0.09324513 = sum of:
    0.024274603 = weight(_text_:web in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024274603 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 5083, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5083)
    0.024274603 = weight(_text_:web in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024274603 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 5083, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5083)
    0.03072123 = weight(_text_:services in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03072123 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.094670646 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.3245064 = fieldWeight in 5083, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5083)
    0.013974689 = product of:
      0.027949378 = sum of:
        0.027949378 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027949378 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09029883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025786186 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5083, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5083)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21052632 = coord(4/19)
    Abstract
    The concept of faceted classification has its long history and importance in the human civilization. Recently, more and more consumer Web sites adopt the idea of facet analysis to organize and display their products or services. The aim of this article is to review the origin and develpment of faceted classification, as well as its concepts, essence, advantage and limitation. Further, the applications of faceted classification in various domians have been explored.
    Date
    27. 5.2007 22:19:35
  2. Gnoli, C.; Mei, H.: Freely faceted classification for Web-based information retrieval (2006) 0.01 
    0.011768704 = product of:
  0.07453513 = sum of:
    0.025747105 = weight(_text_:web in 534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025747105 = score(doc=534,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 534, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=534)
    0.025747105 = weight(_text_:web in 534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025747105 = score(doc=534,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 534, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=534)
    0.023040922 = weight(_text_:services in 534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023040922 = score(doc=534,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.094670646 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 534, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=534)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    Abstract
    In free classification, each concept is expressed by a constant notation, and classmarks are formed by free combinations of them, allowing the retrieval of records from a database by searching any of the component concepts. A refinement of free classification is freely faceted classification, where notation can include facets, expressing the kind of relations held between the concepts. The Integrative Level Classification project aims at testing free and freely faceted classification by applying them to small bibliographical samples in various domains. A sample, called the Dandelion Bibliography of Facet Analysis, is described here. Experience was gained using this system to classify 300 specialized papers dealing with facet analysis itself recorded on a MySQL database and building a Web interface exploiting freely faceted notation. The interface is written in PHP and uses string functions to process the queries and to yield relevant results selected and ordered according to the principles of integrative levels.
    Content
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Knowledge organization systems and services"
  3. Mai, J.E.: Classification of the Web : challenges and inquiries (2004) 0.01 
    0.010220885 = product of:
  0.09709841 = sum of:
    0.048549205 = weight(_text_:web in 3075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048549205 = score(doc=3075,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 3075, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3075)
    0.048549205 = weight(_text_:web in 3075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048549205 = score(doc=3075,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 3075, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3075)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses the challenges faced by investigations into the classification of the Web and outlines inquiries that are needed to use principles for bibliographic classification to construct classifications of the Web. This paper suggests that the classification of the Web meets challenges that call for inquiries into the theoretical foundation of bibliographic classification theory.
  4. Fripp, D.: Using linked data to classify web documents (2010) 0.01 
    0.008943276 = product of:
  0.08496112 = sum of:
    0.04248056 = weight(_text_:web in 4172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04248056 = score(doc=4172,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 4172, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4172)
    0.04248056 = weight(_text_:web in 4172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04248056 = score(doc=4172,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 4172, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4172)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to find a relationship between traditional faceted classification schemes and semantic web document annotators, particularly in the linked data environment. Design/methodology/approach - A consideration of the conceptual ideas behind faceted classification and linked data architecture is made. Analysis of selected web documents is performed using Calais' Semantic Proxy to support the considerations. Findings - Technical language aside, the principles of both approaches are very similar. Modern classification techniques have the potential to automatically generate metadata to drive more precise information recall by including a semantic layer. Originality/value - Linked data have not been explicitly considered in this context before in the published literature.
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  5. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017) 0.01 
    0.00863817 = product of:
  0.05470841 = sum of:
    0.02124028 = weight(_text_:web in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02124028 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
    0.02124028 = weight(_text_:web in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02124028 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
    0.012227853 = product of:
      0.024455706 = sum of:
        0.024455706 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024455706 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09029883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025786186 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    Pages
    S.22-36
    Source
    Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber
  6. Bosch, M.: Ontologies, different reasoning strategies, different logics, different kinds of knowledge representation : working together (2006) 0.01 
    0.0077451034 = product of:
  0.073578484 = sum of:
    0.036789242 = weight(_text_:web in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036789242 = score(doc=166,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=166)
    0.036789242 = weight(_text_:web in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036789242 = score(doc=166,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=166)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    The recent experiences in the building, maintenance and reuse of ontologies has shown that the most efficient approach is the collaborative one. However, communication between collaborators such as IT professionals, librarians, web designers and subject matter experts is difficult and time consuming. This is because there are different reasoning strategies, different logics and different kinds of knowledge representation in the applications of Semantic Web. This article intends to be a reference scheme. It uses concise and simple explanations that can be used in common by specialists of different backgrounds working together in an application of Semantic Web.
  7. Kwasnik, B.H.: ¬The role of classification in knowledge representation (1999) 0.01 
    0.007404145 = product of:
  0.04689292 = sum of:
    0.018205952 = weight(_text_:web in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018205952 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2464, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2464)
    0.018205952 = weight(_text_:web in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018205952 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2464, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2464)
    0.010481017 = product of:
      0.020962033 = sum of:
        0.020962033 = weight(_text_:22 in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020962033 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09029883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025786186 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2464, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2464)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    Abstract
    A fascinating, broad-ranging article about classification, knowledge, and how they relate. Hierarchies, trees, paradigms (a two-dimensional classification that can look something like a spreadsheet), and facets are covered, with descriptions of how they work and how they can be used for knowledge discovery and creation. Kwasnick outlines how to make a faceted classification: choose facets, develop facets, analyze entities using the facets, and make a citation order. Facets are useful for many reasons: they do not require complete knowledge of the entire body of material; they are hospitable, flexible, and expressive; they do not require a rigid background theory; they can mix theoretical structures and models; and they allow users to view things from many perspectives. Facets do have faults: it can be hard to pick the right ones; it is hard to show relations between them; and it is difficult to visualize them. The coverage of the other methods is equally thorough and there is much to consider for anyone putting a classification on the web.
    Source
    Library trends. 48(1999) no.1, S.22-47
  8. Zeng, M.L.; Panzer, M.; Salaba, A.: Expressing classification schemes with OWL 2 Web Ontology Language : exploring issues and opportunities based on experiments using OWL 2 for three classification schemes 0.01 
    0.007227258 = product of:
  0.06865895 = sum of:
    0.034329474 = weight(_text_:web in 3130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034329474 = score(doc=3130,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 3130, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3130)
    0.034329474 = weight(_text_:web in 3130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034329474 = score(doc=3130,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 3130, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3130)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    Based on the research on three general classification schemes, this paper discusses issues encountered when expressing classification schemes in SKOS and explores opportunities of resolving major issues using OWL 2 Web Ontology Language.
  9. Ellis, D.; Vasconcelos, A.: Ranganathan and the Net : using facet analysis to search and organise the World Wide Web (1999) 0.01 
    0.00663866 = product of:
  0.06306727 = sum of:
    0.031533636 = weight(_text_:web in 726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031533636 = score(doc=726,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 726, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=726)
    0.031533636 = weight(_text_:web in 726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031533636 = score(doc=726,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 726, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=726)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    This article gives a cheerfully brief and undetailed account of how to make a faceted classification system, then describes information retrieval and searching on the web. It concludes by saying that facets would be excellent in helping users search and browse the web, but offers no real clues as to how this can be done.
  10. Putkey, T.: Using SKOS to express faceted classification on the Semantic Web (2011) 0.01 
    0.005713649 = product of:
  0.054279666 = sum of:
    0.027139833 = weight(_text_:web in 311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027139833 = score(doc=311,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.32250395 = fieldWeight in 311, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=311)
    0.027139833 = weight(_text_:web in 311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027139833 = score(doc=311,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.32250395 = fieldWeight in 311, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=311)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    This paper looks at Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) to investigate how a faceted classification can be expressed in RDF and shared on the Semantic Web. Statement of the Problem Faceted classification outlines facets as well as subfacets and facet values. Hierarchical relationships and associative relationships are established in a faceted classification. RDF is used to describe how a specific URI has a relationship to a facet value. Not only does RDF decompose "information into pieces," but by incorporating facet values RDF also given the URI the hierarchical and associative relationships expressed in the faceted classification. Combining faceted classification and RDF creates more knowledge than if the two stood alone. An application understands the subjectpredicate-object relationship in RDF and can display hierarchical and associative relationships based on the object (facet) value. This paper continues to investigate if the above idea is indeed useful, used, and applicable. If so, how can a faceted classification be expressed in RDF? What would this expression look like? Literature Review This paper used the same articles as the paper A Survey of Faceted Classification: History, Uses, Drawbacks and the Semantic Web (Putkey, 2010). In that paper, appropriate resources were discovered by searching in various databases for "faceted classification" and "faceted search," either in the descriptor or title fields. Citations were also followed to find more articles as well as searching the Internet for the same terms. To retrieve the documents about RDF, searches combined "faceted classification" and "RDF, " looking for these words in either the descriptor or title.
    Methodology Based on information from research papers, more research was done on SKOS and examples of SKOS and shared faceted classifications in the Semantic Web and about SKOS and how to express SKOS in RDF/XML. Once confident with these ideas, the author used a faceted taxonomy created in a Vocabulary Design class and encoded it using SKOS. Instead of writing RDF in a program such as Notepad, a thesaurus tool was used to create the taxonomy according to SKOS standards and then export the thesaurus in RDF/XML format. These processes and tools are then analyzed. Results The initial statement of the problem was simply an extension of the survey paper done earlier in this class. To continue on with the research, more research was done into SKOS - a standard for expressing thesauri, taxonomies and faceted classifications so they can be shared on the semantic web.
  11. Broughton, V.: ¬The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval (2006) 0.00 
    0.004517036 = product of:
  0.042911842 = sum of:
    0.021455921 = weight(_text_:web in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021455921 = score(doc=2874,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
    0.021455921 = weight(_text_:web in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021455921 = score(doc=2874,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The aim of this article is to estimate the impact of faceted classification and the faceted analytical method on the development of various information retrieval tools over the latter part of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Design/methodology/approach - The article presents an examination of various subject access tools intended for retrieval of both print and digital materials to determine whether they exhibit features of faceted systems. Some attention is paid to use of the faceted approach as a means of structuring information on commercial web sites. The secondary and research literature is also surveyed for commentary on and evaluation of facet analysis as a basis for the building of vocabulary and conceptual tools. Findings - The study finds that faceted systems are now very common, with a major increase in their use over the last 15 years. Most LIS subject indexing tools (classifications, subject heading lists and thesauri) now demonstrate features of facet analysis to a greater or lesser degree. A faceted approach is frequently taken to the presentation of product information on commercial web sites, and there is an independent strand of theory and documentation related to this application. There is some significant research on semi-automatic indexing and retrieval (query expansion and query formulation) using facet analytical techniques. Originality/value - This article provides an overview of an important conceptual approach to information retrieval, and compares different understandings and applications of this methodology.
  12. Olson, H.A.: Sameness and difference : a cultural foundation of classification (2001) 0.00 
    0.00411673 = product of:
  0.039108932 = sum of:
    0.026881078 = weight(_text_:services in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026881078 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.094670646 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=166)
    0.012227853 = product of:
      0.024455706 = sum of:
        0.024455706 = weight(_text_:22 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024455706 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09029883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025786186 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=166)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 45(2001) no.3, S.115-122
  13. Beghtol, C.: General classification systems : structural principles for multidisciplinary specification (1998) 0.00 
    0.003832832 = product of:
  0.036411904 = sum of:
    0.018205952 = weight(_text_:web in 44) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018205952 = score(doc=44,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 44, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=44)
    0.018205952 = weight(_text_:web in 44) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018205952 = score(doc=44,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 44, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=44)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    In this century, knowledge creation, production, dissemination and use have changed profoundly. Intellectual and physical barriers have been substantially reduced by the rise of multidisciplinarity and by the influence of computerization, particularly by the spread of the World Wide Web (WWW). Bibliographic classification systems need to respond to this situation. Three possible strategic responses are described: 1) adopting an existing system; 2) adapting an existing system; and 3) finding new structural principles for classification systems. Examples of these three responses are given. An extended example of the third option uses the knowledge outline in the Spectrum of Britannica Online to suggest a theory of "viewpoint warrant" that could be used to incorporate differing perspectives into general classification systems
  14. Cordeiro, M.I.; Slavic, A.: Data models for knowledge organization tools : evolution and perspectives (2003) 0.00 
    0.003832832 = product of:
  0.036411904 = sum of:
    0.018205952 = weight(_text_:web in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018205952 = score(doc=2632,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2632, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2632)
    0.018205952 = weight(_text_:web in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018205952 = score(doc=2632,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2632, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2632)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    This paper focuses on the need for knowledge organization (KO) tools, such as library classifications, thesauri and subject heading systems, to be fully disclosed and available in the open network environment. The authors look at the place and value of traditional library knowledge organization tools in relation to the technical environment and expectations of the Semantic Web. Future requirements in this context are explored, stressing the need for KO systems to support semantic interoperability. In order to be fully shareable KO tools need to be reframed and reshaped in terms of conceptual and data models. The authors suggest that some useful approaches to this already exist in methodological and technical developments within the fields of ontology modelling and lexicographic and terminological data interchange.
  15. Campbell, G.: ¬A queer eye for the faceted guy : how a universal classification principle can be applied to a distinct subculture (2004) 0.00 
    0.003613629 = product of:
  0.034329474 = sum of:
    0.017164737 = weight(_text_:web in 2639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017164737 = score(doc=2639,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 2639, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2639)
    0.017164737 = weight(_text_:web in 2639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017164737 = score(doc=2639,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 2639, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2639)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Content
    1. Introduction The title of this paper is taken from a TV show which has gained considerable popularity in North America: A Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, in which a group of gay men subject a helpless straight male to a complete fashion makeover. In facet analysis, this would probably be seen as an "operation upon" something, and the Bliss Bibliographic Classification would place it roughly two-thirds of the way along its facet order, after "types" and "materials," but before "space" and "time." But the link between gay communities and facet analysis extends beyond the facetious title. As Web-based information resources for gay and lesbian users continue to grow, Web sites that cater to, or at least refrain from discriminating against gay and lesbian users are faced with a daunting challenge when trying to organize these diverse resources in a way that facilitates congenial browsing. And principles of faceted classification, with their emphasis an clear and consistent principles of subdivision and their care in defining the order of subdivisions, offer an important opportunity to use time-honoured classification principles to serve the growing needs of these communities. If faceted organization schemes are to work, however, we need to know more about gay and lesbian users, and how they categorize themselves and their information sources. This paper presents the results of an effort to learn more.
  16. Slavic, A.: On the nature and typology of documentary classifications and their use in a networked environment (2007) 0.00 
    0.0035286252 = product of:
  0.03352194 = sum of:
    0.023040922 = weight(_text_:services in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023040922 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.094670646 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
    0.010481017 = product of:
      0.020962033 = sum of:
        0.020962033 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020962033 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09029883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025786186 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    Networked orientated standards for vocabulary publishing and exchange and proposals for terminological services and terminology registries will improve sharing and use of all knowledge organization systems in the networked information environment. This means that documentary classifications may also become more applicable for use outside their original domain of application. The paper summarises some characteristics common to documentary classifications and explains some terminological, functional and implementation aspects. The original purpose behind each classification scheme determines the functions that the vocabulary is designed to facilitate. These functions influence the structure, semantics and syntax, scheme coverage and format in which classification data are published and made available. The author suggests that attention should be paid to the differences between documentary classifications as these may determine their suitability for a certain purpose and may impose different requirements with respect to their use online. As we speak, many classifications are being created for knowledge organization and it may be important to promote expertise from the bibliographic domain with respect to building and using classification systems.
    Date
    22.12.2007 17:22:31
  17. Gnoli, C.: ¬The meaning of facets in non-disciplinary classifications (2006) 0.00 
    0.0031940269 = product of:
  0.030343255 = sum of:
    0.0151716275 = weight(_text_:web in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0151716275 = score(doc=2291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2291)
    0.0151716275 = weight(_text_:web in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0151716275 = score(doc=2291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2291)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    Disciplines are felt by many to be a constraint in classification, though they are a structuring principle of most bibliographic classification schemes. A non-disciplinary approach has been explored by the Classification Research Group, and research in this direction has been resumed recently by the Integrative Level Classification project. This paper focuses on the role and the definition of facets in non-disciplinary schemes. A generalized definition of facets is suggested with reference to predicate logic, allowing for having facets of phenomena as well as facets of disciplines. The general categories under which facets are often subsumed can be related ontologically to the evolutionary sequence of integrative levels. As a facet can be semantically connected with phenomena from any other part of a general scheme, its values can belong to three types, here called extra-defined foci (either special or general), and context-defined foci. Non-disciplinary freely faceted classification is being tested by applying it to little bibliographic samples stored in a MySQL database, and developing Web search interfaces to demonstrate possible uses of the described techniques.
  18. Keshet, Y.: Classification systems in the light of sociology of knowledge (2011) 0.00 
    0.0031940269 = product of:
  0.030343255 = sum of:
    0.0151716275 = weight(_text_:web in 4493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0151716275 = score(doc=4493,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4493, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4493)
    0.0151716275 = weight(_text_:web in 4493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0151716275 = score(doc=4493,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4493, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4493)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Classification is an important process in making sense of the world, and has a pronounced social dimension. This paper aims to compare folksonomy, a new social classification system currently being developed on the web, with conventional taxonomy in the light of theoretical sociological and anthropological approaches. The co-existence of these two types of classification system raises the questions: Will and should taxonomies be hybridized with folksonomies? What can each of these systems contribute to information-searching processes, and how can the sociology of knowledge provide an answer to these questions? This paper aims also to address these issues. Design/methodology/approach - This paper is situated at the meeting point of the sociology of knowledge, epistemology and information science and aims at examining systems of classification in the light of both classical theory and current late-modern sociological and anthropological approaches. Findings - Using theoretical approaches current in the sociology of science and knowledge, the paper envisages two divergent possible outcomes. Originality/value - While concentrating on classifications systems, this paper addresses the more general social issue of what we know and how it is known. The concept of hybrid knowledge is suggested in order to illuminate the epistemological basis of late-modern knowledge being constructed by hybridizing contradictory modern knowledge categories, such as the subjective with the objective and the social with the natural. Integrating tree-like taxonomies with folksonomies or, in other words, generating a naturalized structural order of objective relations with social, subjective classification systems, can create a vast range of hybrid knowledge.
  19. Gnoli, C.: Metadata about what? : distinguishing between ontic, epistemic, and documental dimensions in knowledge organization (2012) 0.00 
    0.0031940269 = product of:
  0.030343255 = sum of:
    0.0151716275 = weight(_text_:web in 323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0151716275 = score(doc=323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 323, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=323)
    0.0151716275 = weight(_text_:web in 323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0151716275 = score(doc=323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 323, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=323)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    The spread of many new media and formats is changing the scenario faced by knowledge organizers: as printed monographs are not the only standard form of knowledge carrier anymore, the traditional kind of knowledge organization (KO) systems based on academic disciplines is put into question. A sounder foundation can be provided by an analysis of the different dimensions concurring to form the content of any knowledge item-what Brian Vickery described as the steps "from the world to the classifier." The ultimate referents of documents are the phenomena of the real world, that can be ordered by ontology, the study of what exists. Phenomena coexist in subjects with the perspectives by which they are considered, pertaining to epistemology, and with the formal features of knowledge carriers, adding a further, pragmatic layer. All these dimensions can be accounted for in metadata, but are often done so in mixed ways, making indexes less rigorous and interoperable. For example, while facet analysis was originally developed for subject indexing, many "faceted" interfaces today mix subject facets with form facets, and schemes presented as "ontologies" for the "semantic Web" also code for non-semantic information. In bibliographic classifications, phenomena are often confused with the disciplines dealing with them, the latter being assumed to be the most useful starting point, for users will have either one or another perspective. A general citation order of dimensions- phenomena, perspective, carrier-is recommended, helping to concentrate most relevant information at the beginning of headings.
  20. Zarrad, R.; Doggaz, N.; Zagrouba, E.: Wikipedia HTML structure analysis for ontology construction (2018) 0.00 
    0.0031940269 = product of:
  0.030343255 = sum of:
    0.0151716275 = weight(_text_:web in 4302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0151716275 = score(doc=4302,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4302, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4302)
    0.0151716275 = weight(_text_:web in 4302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0151716275 = score(doc=4302,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4302, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4302)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    Previously, the main problem of information extraction was to gather enough data. Today, the challenge is not to collect data but to interpret and represent them in order to deduce information. Ontologies are considered suitable solutions for organizing information. The classic methods for ontology construction from textual documents rely on natural language analysis and are generally based on statistical or linguistic approaches. However, these approaches do not consider the document structure which provides additional knowledge. In fact, the structural organization of documents also conveys meaning. In this context, new approaches focus on document structure analysis to extract knowledge. This paper describes a methodology for ontology construction from web data and especially from Wikipedia articles. It focuses mainly on document structure in order to extract the main concepts and their relations. The proposed methods extract not only taxonomic and non-taxonomic relations but also give the labels describing non-taxonomic relations. The extraction of non-taxonomic relations is established by analyzing the titles hierarchy in each document. A pattern matching is also applied in order to extract known semantic relations. We propose also to apply a refinement to the extracted relations in order to keep only those that are relevant. The refinement process is performed by applying the transitive property, checking the nature of the relations and analyzing taxonomic relations having inverted arguments. Experiments have been performed on French Wikipedia articles related to the medical field. Ontology evaluation is performed by comparing it to gold standards.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 38
  • f 3
  • d 2
  • chi 1
  • More… Less…

Themes