Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.006720532 = product of:
  0.013441064 = sum of:
    0.013441064 = product of:
      0.026882129 = sum of:
        0.026882129 = weight(_text_:c in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026882129 = score(doc=3487,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14107318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = 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)

0.005376426 = product of:
  0.010752852 = sum of:
    0.010752852 = product of:
      0.021505704 = sum of:
        0.021505704 = weight(_text_:c in 3636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021505704 = score(doc=3636,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14107318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = 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some indexing systems were made in the first place specifically to avoid general classification systems which were out of date in all fast-moving disciplines, especially in the "hard" sciences.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:

0.0023477348 = product of:
  0.0046954695 = sum of:
    0.0046954695 = product of:
      0.028172817 = sum of:
        0.028172817 = weight(_text_:authors in 3640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028172817 = score(doc=3640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1864456 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = queryNorm
            0.15110476 = fieldWeight in 3640, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3640)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  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.

0.0023477348 = product of:
  0.0046954695 = sum of:
    0.0046954695 = product of:
      0.028172817 = sum of:
        0.028172817 = weight(_text_:authors in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028172817 = score(doc=3651,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1864456 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = queryNorm
            0.15110476 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The fan of past documents may be seen across time as a philosophical "wake," translated documents as a sideways relationship and future documents as another fan spreading forward from a given document (p. 365). The "overlap of reading histories can be used to detect common interests among readers," (p. 365) and readers may be classified accordingly. Finally, Fairthorne rejects the notion of a "general" classification, which he regards as a mirage, to be replaced by a citation-type network to identify classes. An interesting feature of his work lies in his linkage between old and new documents via a bibliographic method-citations, authors' names, imprints, style, and vocabulary - rather than topical (subject) terms. This is an indirect method of creating classes. The subject (aboutness) is conceived as a finite, common sharing of knowledge over time (past, present, and future) as opposed to the more common hierarchy of topics in an infinite schema assumed to be universally useful. Fairthorne, a mathematician by training, is a prolific writer an the foundations of classification and information. His professional career includes work with the Royal Engineers Chemical Warfare Section and the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE). He was the founder of the Computing Unit which became the RAE Mathematics Department.