Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0072092023 = product of:
  0.014418405 = sum of:
    0.014418405 = product of:
      0.02883681 = sum of:
        0.02883681 = weight(_text_:m in 3921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02883681 = score(doc=3921,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052685954 = queryNorm
            0.21994986 = fieldWeight in 3921, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3921)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

m

0.0054069017 = product of:
  0.010813803 = sum of:
    0.010813803 = product of:
      0.021627607 = sum of:
        0.021627607 = weight(_text_:m in 2475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021627607 = score(doc=2475,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052685954 = queryNorm
            0.1649624 = fieldWeight in 2475, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2475)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

m

0.0054069017 = product of:
  0.010813803 = sum of:
    0.010813803 = product of:
      0.021627607 = sum of:
        0.021627607 = weight(_text_:m in 2069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021627607 = score(doc=2069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052685954 = queryNorm
            0.1649624 = fieldWeight in 2069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

m

0.004536646 = product of:
  0.009073292 = sum of:
    0.009073292 = product of:
      0.036293168 = sum of:
        0.036293168 = weight(_text_:authors in 3640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036293168 = score(doc=3640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24018547 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052685954 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  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.

0.004536646 = product of:
  0.009073292 = sum of:
    0.009073292 = product of:
      0.036293168 = sum of:
        0.036293168 = weight(_text_:authors in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036293168 = score(doc=3651,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24018547 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052685954 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  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.

0.003154026 = product of:
  0.006308052 = sum of:
    0.006308052 = product of:
      0.012616104 = sum of:
        0.012616104 = weight(_text_:m in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012616104 = score(doc=3631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052685954 = queryNorm
            0.09622806 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.