Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  • × year_i:[1980 TO 1990}
  1. Fairthorne, R.A.: Temporal structure in bibliographic classification (1985) 0.01 
    0.009470518 = product of:
  0.018941035 = sum of:
    0.018941035 = product of:
      0.07576414 = sum of:
        0.07576414 = weight(_text_:author's in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07576414 = score(doc=3651,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34014043 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061498 = queryNorm
            0.22274372 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper, presented at the Ottawa Conference an the Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, in 1971, is one of Fairthorne's more perceptive works and deserves a wide audience, especially as it breaks new ground in classification theory. In discussing the notion of discourse, he makes a "distinction between what discourse mentions and what discourse is about" [emphasis added], considered as a "fundamental factor to the relativistic nature of bibliographic classification" (p. 360). A table of mathematical functions, for example, describes exactly something represented by a collection of digits, but, without a preface, this table does not fit into a broader context. Some indication of the author's intent ls needed to fit the table into a broader context. This intent may appear in a title, chapter heading, class number or some other aid. Discourse an and discourse about something "cannot be determined solely from what it mentions" (p. 361). Some kind of background is needed. Fairthorne further develops the theme that knowledge about a subject comes from previous knowledge, thus adding a temporal factor to classification. "Some extra textual criteria are needed" in order to classify (p. 362). For example, "documents that mention the same things, but are an different topics, will have different ancestors, in the sense of preceding documents to which they are linked by various bibliographic characteristics ... [and] ... they will have different descendants" (p. 363). The classifier has to distinguish between documents that "mention exactly the same thing" but are not about the same thing. The classifier does this by classifying "sets of documents that form their histories, their bibliographic world lines" (p. 363). The practice of citation is one method of performing the linking and presents a "fan" of documents connected by a chain of citations to past work. The fan is seen as the effect of generations of documents - each generation connected to the previous one, and all ancestral to the present document. Thus, there are levels in temporal structure-that is, antecedent and successor documents-and these require that documents be identified in relation to other documents. This gives a set of documents an "irrevocable order," a loose order which Fairthorne calls "bibliographic time," and which is "generated by the fact of continual growth" (p. 364). He does not consider "bibliographic time" to be an equivalent to physical time because bibliographic events, as part of communication, require delay. Sets of documents, as indicated above, rather than single works, are used in classification. While an event, a person, a unique feature of the environment, may create a class of one-such as the French Revolution, Napoleon, Niagara Falls-revolutions, emperors, and waterfalls are sets which, as sets, will subsume individuals and make normal classes.
  2. Beghtol, C.: Semantic validity : concepts of warrants in bibliographic classification systems (1986) 0.01 
    0.008317302 = product of:
  0.016634604 = sum of:
    0.016634604 = product of:
      0.033269208 = sum of:
        0.033269208 = weight(_text_:c in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033269208 = score(doc=3487,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17459157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061498 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  3. Vickery, B.C.: Systematic subject indexing (1985) 0.01 
    0.006653842 = product of:
  0.013307684 = sum of:
    0.013307684 = product of:
      0.026615368 = sum of:
        0.026615368 = weight(_text_:c in 3636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026615368 = score(doc=3636,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17459157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061498 = queryNorm
            0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 3636, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3636)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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:

Authors