Search (250 results, page 12 of 13)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  1. Blake, J.: Some issues in the classification of zoology (2011) 0.00 
    5.0887186E-4 = product of:
  0.0020354874 = sum of:
    0.0020354874 = product of:
      0.006106462 = sum of:
        0.006106462 = weight(_text_:a in 4845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006106462 = score(doc=4845,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 4845, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4845)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper identifies and discusses features of the classification of mammals that are relevant to the bibliographic classification of the subject. The tendency of zoological classifications to change, the differing sizes of groups of species, the use zoologists make of groupings other than taxa, and the links in zoology between classification and nomenclature, are identified as key themes the bibliographic classificationist needs to be aware of. The impact of cladistics, a novel classificatory method and philosophy adopted by zoologists in the last few decades, is identified as the defining feature of the current, rather turbulent, state of zoological classification. However because zoologists still employ some non-cladistic classifications, because cladistic classifications are in some way unsuited to optimal information storage and retrieval, and because some of their consequences for zoological classification are as yet unknown, bibliographic classifications cannot be modelled entirely on them.
    Content
    This paper is based on a thesis of the same title, completed as part of an MA in Library and Information Studies at University College London in 2009, and available at http://62.32.98.6/elibsql2uk_Z10300UK_Documents/Catalogued_PDFs/ Some_issues_in_the_classification_of_zoology.PDF. Thanks are due to Vanda Broughton, who supervised the MA thesis; and to Diane Tough of the Natural History Museum, London and Ann Sylph of the Zoological Society of London, who both provided valuable insights into the classification of zoological literature.
    Type
    a
  2. Hjoerland, B.: Facet analysis : the logical approach to knowledge organization (2013) 0.00 
    5.0887186E-4 = product of:
  0.0020354874 = sum of:
    0.0020354874 = product of:
      0.006106462 = sum of:
        0.006106462 = weight(_text_:a in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006106462 = score(doc=2720,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2720, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2720)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The facet-analytic paradigm is probably the most distinct approach to knowledge organization within Library and Information Science, and in many ways it has dominated what has be termed "modern classification theory". It was mainly developed by S.R. Ranganathan and the British Classification Research Group, but it is mostly based on principles of logical division developed more than two millennia ago. Colon Classification (CC) and Bliss 2 (BC2) are among the most important systems developed on this theoretical basis, but it has also influenced the development of other systems, such as the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and is also applied in many websites. It still has a strong position in the field and it is the most explicit and "pure" theoretical approach to knowledge organization (KO) (but it is not by implication necessarily also the most important one). The strength of this approach is its logical principles and the way it provides structures in knowledge organization systems (KOS). The main weaknesses are (1) its lack of empirical basis and (2) its speculative ordering of knowledge without basis in the development or influence of theories and socio-historical studies. It seems to be based on the problematic assumption that relations between concepts are a priori and not established by the development of models, theories and laws.
    Type
    a
  3. Svenonius, E.: Facets as semantic categories (1979) 0.00 
    4.985905E-4 = product of:
  0.001994362 = sum of:
    0.001994362 = product of:
      0.005983086 = sum of:
        0.005983086 = weight(_text_:a in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005983086 = score(doc=1427,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1427, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1427)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The paper looks at the semantic and syntactic components of facet definition. In synthetic classificatory languages, primitive terms are categorized into facets; facet information, when, is used in stating the syntactic rules for combining primitive terms into the acceptable (well-formed) complex expressions in the language. In other words, the structure of a synthetic classificatory language can be defined in terms of the facets recognized in the language and the syntactic rules employed by the language. Thus, facets are the "grammatical categories" of classificatory languages and their definition is the first step in formulating structural descriptions of such languages. As well, the study of how facets are defined can give some insight into how language is used to embody information
    Type
    a
  4. Beghtol, C.: General classification systems : structural principles for multidisciplinary specification (1998) 0.00 
    4.985905E-4 = product of:
  0.001994362 = sum of:
    0.001994362 = product of:
      0.005983086 = sum of:
        0.005983086 = weight(_text_:a in 44) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005983086 = score(doc=44,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 44, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=44)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
    Type
    a
  5. Cordeiro, M.I.; Slavic, A.: Data models for knowledge organization tools : evolution and perspectives (2003) 0.00 
    4.985905E-4 = product of:
  0.001994362 = sum of:
    0.001994362 = product of:
      0.005983086 = sum of:
        0.005983086 = weight(_text_:a in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005983086 = score(doc=2632,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2632, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2632)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  6. Gnoli, C.: Naturalism vs pragmatism in knowledge organization (2004) 0.00 
    4.985905E-4 = product of:
  0.001994362 = sum of:
    0.001994362 = product of:
      0.005983086 = sum of:
        0.005983086 = weight(_text_:a in 2663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005983086 = score(doc=2663,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2663, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2663)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Several authors remark that categories used in languages, including indexing ones, are affected by cultural biases, and do not reflect reality in an objective way. Hence knowledge organization would essentially be determined by pragmatic factors. However, human categories are connected with the structure of reality through biological bonds, and this allows for a naturalistic approach too. Naturalism has been adopted by Farradane in proposing relational categories, and by Dahlberg and the CRG in applying the theory of integrative levels to general classification schemes. The latter is especially relevant for possible developments in making the structure of schemes independent from disciplines, and in applying it to digital information retrieval.
    Type
    a
  7. Negrini, G.; Zozi, P.: Ontological analysis of the literary work of art (2003) 0.00 
    4.985905E-4 = product of:
  0.001994362 = sum of:
    0.001994362 = product of:
      0.005983086 = sum of:
        0.005983086 = weight(_text_:a in 2687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005983086 = score(doc=2687,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2687, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2687)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Ontological structures can aid the understanding and modelling of works of art. Ontology of the aesthetic object, and particularly of the literary work, has been analysed by Hartmann and Ingarden. Application of Dahlberg's ontical 'systematifier' model enabled us to organize the entire structure of the Thesaurus of Italian Literature, and to highlight a number of significant aspects of the literary work. After describing the conclusions arising from the experience of compiling the thesaurus, the paper briefly outlines Hartmann's and Ingarden's theories of levels and seeks to identify commonalities between the ontological analysis of the two theories and the conclusions of the thesaurus.
    Type
    a
  8. Kwasnik, B.H.; Rubin, V.L.: Stretching conceptual structures in classifications across languages and cultures (2003) 0.00 
    4.985905E-4 = product of:
  0.001994362 = sum of:
    0.001994362 = product of:
      0.005983086 = sum of:
        0.005983086 = weight(_text_:a in 5517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005983086 = score(doc=5517,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 5517, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5517)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The authors describe the difficulties of translating classifications from a source language and culture to another language and culture. To demonstrate these problems, kinship terms and concepts from native speakers of fourteen languages were collected and analyzed to find differences between their terms and structures and those used in English. Using the representations of kinship terms in the Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) as examples, the authors identified the source of possible lack of mapping between the domain of kinship in the fourteen languages studied and the LCC and DDC. Finally, some preliminary suggestions for how to make translated classifications more linguistically and culturally hospitable are offered.
    Type
    a
  9. Kaula, P.N.: Canons in analytico-synthetic classification (1979) 0.00 
    4.700756E-4 = product of:
  0.0018803024 = sum of:
    0.0018803024 = product of:
      0.005640907 = sum of:
        0.005640907 = weight(_text_:a in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005640907 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  10. Curras, E.: Ranganathan's classification theories under the systems science postulates (1992) 0.00 
    4.700756E-4 = product of:
  0.0018803024 = sum of:
    0.0018803024 = product of:
      0.005640907 = sum of:
        0.005640907 = weight(_text_:a in 6993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005640907 = score(doc=6993,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 6993, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6993)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  11. Mai, J.E.: Classification of the Web : challenges and inquiries (2004) 0.00 
    4.700756E-4 = product of:
  0.0018803024 = sum of:
    0.0018803024 = product of:
      0.005640907 = sum of:
        0.005640907 = weight(_text_:a in 3075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005640907 = score(doc=3075,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3075, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3075)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  12. Svenonius, E.: ¬The epistemological foundations of knowledge representations (2004) 0.00 
    4.700756E-4 = product of:
  0.0018803024 = sum of:
    0.0018803024 = product of:
      0.005640907 = sum of:
        0.005640907 = weight(_text_:a in 766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005640907 = score(doc=766,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 766, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=766)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  13. Szostak, R.: Interdisciplinarity and the classification of scholarly documents by phenomena, theories and methods (2007) 0.00 
    4.700756E-4 = product of:
  0.0018803024 = sum of:
    0.0018803024 = product of:
      0.005640907 = sum of:
        0.005640907 = weight(_text_:a in 1135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005640907 = score(doc=1135,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 1135, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1135)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  14. Keilty, P.: Tabulating queer : space, perversion, and belonging (2009) 0.00 
    4.700756E-4 = product of:
  0.0018803024 = sum of:
    0.0018803024 = product of:
      0.005640907 = sum of:
        0.005640907 = weight(_text_:a in 3253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005640907 = score(doc=3253,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3253, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3253)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  15. Hjoerland, B.: Classification (2017) 0.00 
    4.700756E-4 = product of:
  0.0018803024 = sum of:
    0.0018803024 = product of:
      0.005640907 = sum of:
        0.005640907 = weight(_text_:a in 3610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005640907 = score(doc=3610,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3610, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3610)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  16. Bragato Barros, T.H.; Libonati Gomes, D.: Classification and knowledge organization systems : ontologies and archival classification (2018) 0.00 
    4.700756E-4 = product of:
  0.0018803024 = sum of:
    0.0018803024 = product of:
      0.005640907 = sum of:
        0.005640907 = weight(_text_:a in 4715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005640907 = score(doc=4715,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 4715, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4715)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  17. Franz, S.; Lopatka, T.; Kunze, G.; Meyn, N.; Strupler, N.: Un/Doing Classification : Bibliothekarische Klassifikationssysteme zwischen Universalitätsanspruch und reduktionistischer Wissensorganisation (2022) 0.00 
    4.700756E-4 = product of:
  0.0018803024 = sum of:
    0.0018803024 = product of:
      0.005640907 = sum of:
        0.005640907 = weight(_text_:a in 675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005640907 = score(doc=675,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 675, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=675)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  18. Szostak, R.: Classifying science : phenomena, data, theory, method, practice (2004) 0.00 
    4.6638874E-4 = product of:
  0.001865555 = sum of:
    0.001865555 = product of:
      0.0055966647 = sum of:
        0.0055966647 = weight(_text_:a in 325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0055966647 = score(doc=325,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.10111657 = fieldWeight in 325, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=325)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Classification is the essential first step in science. The study of science, as well as the practice of science, will thus benefit from a detailed classification of different types of science. In this book, science - defined broadly to include the social sciences and humanities - is first unpacked into its constituent elements: the phenomena studied, the data used, the theories employed, the methods applied, and the practices of scientists. These five elements are then classified in turn. Notably, the classifications of both theory types and methods allow the key strengths and weaknesses of different theories and methods to be readily discerned and compared. Connections across classifications are explored: should certain theories or phenomena be investigated only with certain methods? What is the proper function and form of scientific paradigms? Are certain common errors and biases in scientific practice associated with particular phenomena, data, theories, or methods? The classifications point to several ways of improving both specialized and interdisciplinary research and teaching, and especially of enhancing communication across communities of scholars. The classifications also support a superior system of document classification that would allow searches by theory and method used as well as causal links investigated.
    Content
    Inhalt: - Chapter 1: Classifying Science: 1.1. A Simple Classificatory Guideline - 1.2. The First "Cut" (and Plan of Work) - 1.3. Some Preliminaries - Chapter 2: Classifying Phenomena and Data: 2.1. Classifying Phenomena - 2.2. Classifying Data - Chapter 3: Classifying Theory: 3.1. Typology of Theory - 3.2. What Is a Theory? - 3.3. Evaluating Theories - 3.4. Types of Theory and the Five Types of Causation - 3.5. Classifying Individual Theories - 3.6. Advantages of a Typology of Theory - Chapter 4: Classifying Method: 4.1. Classifying Methods - 4.2. Typology of Strengths and Weaknesses of Methods - 4.3. Qualitative Versus Quantitative Analysis Revisited - 4.4. Evaluating Methods - 4.5. Classifying Particular Methods Within The Typology - 4.6. Advantages of a Typology of Methods - Chapter 5: Classifying Practice: 5.1. Errors and Biases in ScienceChapter - 5.2. Typology of (Critiques of) Scientific Practice - 5.3. Utilizing This Classification - 5.4. The Five Types of Ethical Analysis - Chapter 6: Drawing Connections Across These Classifications: 6.1. Theory and Method - 6.2. Theory (Method) and Phenomena (Data) - 6.3. Better Paradigms - 6.4. Critiques of Scientific Practice: Are They Correlated with Other Classifications? - Chapter 7: Classifying Scientific Documents: 7.1. Faceted or Enumerative? - 7.2. Classifying By Phenomena Studied - 7.3. Classifying By Theory Used - 7.4. Classifying By Method Used - 7.5 Links Among Subjects - 7.6. Type of Work, Language, and More - 7.7. Critiques of Scientific Practice - 7.8. Classifying Philosophy - 7.9. Evaluating the System - Chapter 8: Concluding Remarks: 8.1. The Classifications - 8.2. Advantages of These Various Classifications - 8.3. Drawing Connections Across Classifications - 8.4. Golden Mean Arguments - 8.5. Why Should Science Be Believed? - 8.6. How Can Science Be Improved? - 8.7. How Should Science Be Taught?
    Footnote
    Rez. in: KO 32(2005) no.2, S.93-95 (H. Albrechtsen): "The book deals with mapping of the structures and contents of sciences, defined broadly to include the social sciences and the humanities. According to the author, the study of science, as well as the practice of science, could benefit from a detailed classification of different types of science. The book defines five universal constituents of the sciences: phenomena, data, theories, methods and practice. For each of these constituents, the author poses five questions, in the well-known 5W format: Who, What, Where, When, Why? - with the addition of the question How? (Szostak 2003). Two objectives of the author's endeavor stand out: 1) decision support for university curriculum development across disciplines and decision support for university students at advanced levels of education in selection of appropriate courses for their projects and to support cross-disciplinary inquiry for researchers and students; 2) decision support for researchers and students in scientific inquiry across disciplines, methods and theories. The main prospective audience of this book is university curriculum developers, university students and researchers, in that order of priority. The heart of the book is the chapters unfolding the author's ideas about how to classify phenomena and data, theory, method and practice, by use of the 5W inquiry model. . . .
  19. Scerri, E.R.: ¬The periodic table : its story and its significance (2007) 0.00 
    4.31792E-4 = product of:
  0.001727168 = sum of:
    0.001727168 = product of:
      0.005181504 = sum of:
        0.005181504 = weight(_text_:a in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005181504 = score(doc=2492,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.09361574 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The periodic table is one of the most potent icons in science. It lies at the core of chemistry and embodies the most fundamental principles of the field. The one definitive text on the development of the periodic table by van Spronsen (1969), has been out of print for a considerable time. The present book provides a successor to van Spronsen, but goes further in giving an evaluation of the extent to which modern physics has, or has not, explained the periodic system. The book is written in a lively style to appeal to experts and interested lay-persons alike. The Periodic Table begins with an overview of the importance of the periodic table and of the elements and it examines the manner in which the term 'element' has been interpreted by chemists and philosophers. The book then turns to a systematic account of the early developments that led to the classification of the elements including the work of Lavoisier, Boyle and Dalton and Cannizzaro. The precursors to the periodic system, like Dobereiner and Gmelin, are discussed. In chapter 3 the discovery of the periodic system by six independent scientists is examined in detail. Two chapters are devoted to the discoveries of Mendeleev, the leading discoverer, including his predictions of new elements and his accommodation of already existing elements. Chapters 6 and 7 consider the impact of physics including the discoveries of radioactivity and isotopy and successive theories of the electron including Bohr's quantum theoretical approach. Chapter 8 discusses the response to the new physical theories by chemists such as Lewis and Bury who were able to draw on detailed chemical knowledge to correct some of the early electronic configurations published by Bohr and others. Chapter 9 provides a critical analysis of the extent to which modern quantum mechanics is, or is not, able to explain the periodic system from first principles. Finally, chapter 10 considers the way that the elements evolved following the Big Bang and in the interior of stars. The book closes with an examination of further chemical aspects including lesser known trends within the periodic system such as the knight's move relationship and secondary periodicity, as well at attempts to explain such trends.
    Footnote
    Rez. in: KO 35(2008) no.4, S.251-254 (B. Hjoerland): "The book is about the classification of chemical elements known as the periodical system. It is described as "one of the most potent icons in science [.] One sees periodic tables everywhere: in industrial labs, workshops, academic labs, and of course, lecture halls" (p. xiii). Among all taxonomies in all domains, there is probably none more respected and more useful than this one. As Scerri states (p. 25): The periodic table ranks as one of the most fruitful and unifying ideas in the whole of modern science, comparable perhaps with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Unlike such theories as Newtonian mechanics, the periodic table has not been falsified by developments in modern physics but has evolved while remaining essentially unchanged. After evolving for nearly 150 years through the work of numerous individuals, the periodic table remains at the heart of chemistry. This is mainly because it is of immense practical benefit for making predictions about all manner of chemical and physical properties of the elements and possibilities for bond formation. The periodic system provides the basic criteria for organizing knowledge about all the material stuff in the entire universe. It is thus a model that anybody with interests in knowledge organization (KO) should know. Knowledge about the history, philosophy and status of the periodic system also provides important insight for knowledge organization in general. . . . Scerri's book demonstrates how one of the most important classification systems has evolved and what kinds of conceptualizations and classification criteria are at work in it. It is probably the best book about the best classification system ever constructed. It should belong to any library supporting teaching and research in knowledge organization."
  20. Green, R.: Facet analysis and semantic frames (2017) 0.00 
    4.154921E-4 = product of:
  0.0016619684 = sum of:
    0.0016619684 = product of:
      0.0049859053 = sum of:
        0.0049859053 = weight(_text_:a in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049859053 = score(doc=3849,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Various fields, each with its own theories, techniques, and tools, are concerned with identifying and representing the conceptual structure of specific knowledge domains. This paper compares facet analysis, an analytic technique coming out of knowledge organization (especially as undertaken by members of the Classification Research Group (CRG)), with semantic frame analysis, an analytic technique coming out of lexical semantics (especially as undertaken by the developers of Frame-Net) The investigation addresses three questions: 1) how do CRG-style facet analysis and semantic frame analysis characterize the conceptual structures that they identify?; 2) how similar are the techniques they use?; and, 3) how similar are the conceptual structures they produce? Facet analysis is concerned with the logical categories underlying the terminology of an entire field, while semantic frame analysis is concerned with the participant-and-prop structure manifest in sentences about a type of situation or event. When their scope of application is similar, as, for example, in the areas of the performing arts or education, the resulting facets and semantic frame elements often bear striking resemblance, without being the same; facets are more often expressed as semantic types, while frame elements are more often expressed as roles.
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 221
  • m 22
  • el 10
  • s 4
  • b 1
  • n 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications