-
Foskett, D.J.: Systems theory and its relevance to documentary classification (2017)
0.05
0.05013318 = product of:
0.10026636 = sum of:
0.10026636 = product of:
0.15039954 = sum of:
0.07718465 = weight(_text_:p in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07718465 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1619138 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.47670212 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
0.07321488 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07321488 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15769506 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 6. 5.2017 18:46:22
- Source
- International classification. 7(1980) no.1, p.2-5
-
Maniez, J.: ¬Des classifications aux thesaurus : du bon usage des facettes (1999)
0.04
0.044498585 = product of:
0.08899717 = sum of:
0.08899717 = product of:
0.13349575 = sum of:
0.060280867 = weight(_text_:j in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060280867 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14308962 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.4212805 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
0.07321488 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07321488 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15769506 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 1. 8.1996 22:01:00
-
Maniez, J.: ¬Du bon usage des facettes : des classifications aux thésaurus (1999)
0.04
0.044498585 = product of:
0.08899717 = sum of:
0.08899717 = product of:
0.13349575 = sum of:
0.060280867 = weight(_text_:j in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060280867 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14308962 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.4212805 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
0.07321488 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07321488 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15769506 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 1. 8.1996 22:01:00
-
Qin, J.: Evolving paradigms of knowledge representation and organization : a comparative study of classification, XML/DTD and ontology (2003)
0.04
0.040441886 = product of:
0.08088377 = sum of:
0.08088377 = sum of:
0.020093622 = weight(_text_:j in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020093622 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14308962 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.14042683 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.036385193 = weight(_text_:p in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036385193 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1619138 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.22471954 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.02440496 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02440496 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15769506 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The different points of views an knowledge representation and organization from various research communities reflect underlying philosophies and paradigms in these communities. This paper reviews differences and relations in knowledge representation and organization and generalizes four paradigms-integrative and disintegrative pragmatism and integrative and disintegrative epistemologism. Examples such as classification, XML schemas, and ontologies are compared based an how they specify concepts, build data models, and encode knowledge organization structures. 1. Introduction Knowledge representation (KR) is a term that several research communities use to refer to somewhat different aspects of the same research area. The artificial intelligence (AI) community considers KR as simply "something to do with writing down, in some language or communications medium, descriptions or pictures that correspond in some salient way to the world or a state of the world" (Duce & Ringland, 1988, p. 3). It emphasizes the ways in which knowledge can be encoded in a computer program (Bench-Capon, 1990). For the library and information science (LIS) community, KR is literally the synonym of knowledge organization, i.e., KR is referred to as the process of organizing knowledge into classifications, thesauri, or subject heading lists. KR has another meaning in LIS: it "encompasses every type and method of indexing, abstracting, cataloguing, classification, records management, bibliography and the creation of textual or bibliographic databases for information retrieval" (Anderson, 1996, p. 336). Adding the social dimension to knowledge organization, Hjoerland (1997) states that knowledge is a part of human activities and tied to the division of labor in society, which should be the primary organization of knowledge. Knowledge organization in LIS is secondary or derived, because knowledge is organized in learned institutions and publications. These different points of views an KR suggest that an essential difference in the understanding of KR between both AI and LIS lies in the source of representationwhether KR targets human activities or derivatives (knowledge produced) from human activities. This difference also decides their difference in purpose-in AI KR is mainly computer-application oriented or pragmatic and the result of representation is used to support decisions an human activities, while in LIS KR is conceptually oriented or abstract and the result of representation is used for access to derivatives from human activities.
- Date
- 12. 9.2004 17:22:35
-
Perreault, J.: Categories and relators : a new schema (1994)
0.03
0.030265694 = product of:
0.06053139 = sum of:
0.06053139 = product of:
0.09079708 = sum of:
0.05220476 = weight(_text_:j in 8863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05220476 = score(doc=8863,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14308962 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.3648396 = fieldWeight in 8863, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8863)
0.038592324 = weight(_text_:p in 8863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038592324 = score(doc=8863,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1619138 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 8863, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8863)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Based on the works of Aristotle, Ramon Lull, I. Kant and the experiences with relationships published in the works of S.R. Ranganathan, E.de Grolier, J. Mills, J.C. Costello, E. Wall, R. Pagès, A. Leroy, P. Braffort, M. Kervégant, J.C. Gardin and J. Farradane, categories and relationships were collected, analyzed, grouped and classified in a triadic way so that a scheme resulted by which 120 relationships could be defined and identified by their positions and their codes. The exercise was meant to create and supply a tool for the replacement of the non-significant relation symbol, the colon, in the UDC by a letter code which could express the actual relationship contained in a classificatory statement. Examples for their application illustrate different cases occuring
-
Advances in classification research. Vol.10 : Proceedings of the 10th ASIS SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop, held at the 62nd ASIS Annual Meeting Nov 1-5, 1999, Washington (2001)
0.03
0.027072445 = product of:
0.05414489 = sum of:
0.05414489 = product of:
0.08121733 = sum of:
0.04262501 = weight(_text_:j in 1586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04262501 = score(doc=1586,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14308962 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.2978903 = fieldWeight in 1586, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1586)
0.038592324 = weight(_text_:p in 1586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038592324 = score(doc=1586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1619138 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 1586, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1586)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Content
- Enthält die Beiträge: DAVENPORT, E.: Implicit orders: documentary genres and organizational practice; ANDERSEN, J. u. F.S. CHRISTENSEN: Wittgenstein and indexing theory; OLSON, H.A.: Cultural discourses of classification: indigeous alternatives to the tradition of Aristotle, Dürkheim, and Foucault; FRÂNCU, V.: A universal classification system going through changes; JACOB, E.K. u. U. PRISS: Nontraditional indexing structures for the management of electronic resources; BROOKS, T.A.: Relevance auras: macro patterns and micro scatter; RUIZ, M.E. u. SRINIVASAN, P.: Combining machine learning and hierarchical indexing structures for text categorization; WEEDMAN, J.: Local practice and the growth of knowledge: decisions in subject access to digitized images
-
Molholt, P.: Qualities of classification schemes for the Information Superhighway (1995)
0.02
0.020888826 = product of:
0.04177765 = sum of:
0.04177765 = product of:
0.062666476 = sum of:
0.03216027 = weight(_text_:p in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03216027 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1619138 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
0.030506201 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030506201 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15769506 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 21(1995) no.2, S.19-22
-
Zhang, J.; Zeng, M.L.: ¬A new similarity measure for subject hierarchical structures (2014)
0.02
0.018541075 = product of:
0.03708215 = sum of:
0.03708215 = product of:
0.055623226 = sum of:
0.025117027 = weight(_text_:j in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025117027 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14308962 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 1778, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1778)
0.030506201 = weight(_text_:22 in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030506201 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15769506 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1778, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1778)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 8. 4.2015 16:22:13
-
Mai, J.-E.: Is classification theory possible? : Rethinking classification research (2003)
0.02
0.015273946 = product of:
0.030547893 = sum of:
0.030547893 = product of:
0.045821838 = sum of:
0.020093622 = weight(_text_:j in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020093622 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14308962 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.14042683 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
0.025728216 = weight(_text_:p in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025728216 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1619138 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.15890071 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- 1. Introduction Theoretical context independent explanations of classification could enhance the universality of classification research and make knowledge about classification available to settings other than traditional libraries. There is a tremendous need for constructing classificatory structures in a range of settings many of which are far removed from the environment in which classification theory and research has been practiced in the last century and a half. The construction of classificatory structures an the Internet, intranets, and in knowledge management systems has received some attention lately. The question examined here is whether it is possible to create a single theory of classification that applies to the range of contexts in which classificatory structures are applied. The object of this paper is to question the assumption that bibliographic classification theory can resemble scientific theories. It is argued that the context of any classification influences the use and understanding of the classification to such a degree that the classification cannot be understood separate from its context. Furthermore, the development from being a novice classifier or classificationist to becoming an expert is explored. lt is assumed scientific theories must relate as much to the activity of novices as to the activity of experts and that scientific theories explain both what it is that novices do and what experts do. It is argued that expertise is achieved not through a correct application of a classification theory but through experiences and adjustment to a particular context and that the activities of novices are quite distinct from the activities of experts in that experts draws an the context of the situation and that novices do not. 2. Theory of Classification Langridge (1976) provides an account of the principles of constructing knowledge organization systems and the theoretical underpinnings of different approaches. He identifies four principles that have guided construction of knowledge organization systems: 1) ideological, 2) social purpose, 3) scientific, and 4) the disciplines. The ideological principle organizes knowledge according to an ideology that the knowledge organization system serves. Langridge gives the examples of "the Christian schemes of the Middle Ages and the Soviet scheme which substitutes for the Bible and Christianity the works of Marx and Lenin and the 'religion' of communism" (Langridge, 1976, p. 4-5).
-
Farradane, J.E.L.: ¬A scientific theory of classification and indexing : further considerations (1952)
0.01
0.0117212795 = product of:
0.023442559 = sum of:
0.023442559 = product of:
0.07032768 = sum of:
0.07032768 = weight(_text_:j in 1655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07032768 = score(doc=1655,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14308962 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.4914939 = fieldWeight in 1655, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1655)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Fortsetzung von: J. Doc. 6(1950) S.83-99.
-
Austin, D.: Citation order and linguistic structure (1976)
0.01
0.010046812 = product of:
0.020093624 = sum of:
0.020093624 = product of:
0.060280867 = sum of:
0.060280867 = weight(_text_:j in 2804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060280867 = score(doc=2804,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14308962 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.4212805 = fieldWeight in 2804, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2804)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- The variety of librarianship. Essays in honor of J. W. Metcalfe. Ed. by W. Boyd Rayward
-
Facets: a fruitful notion in many domains : special issue on facet analysis (2008)
0.01
0.010027726 = product of:
0.020055452 = sum of:
0.020055452 = product of:
0.060166355 = sum of:
0.060166355 = weight(_text_:p in 3262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060166355 = score(doc=3262,freq=28.0), product of:
0.1619138 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.371595 = fieldWeight in 3262, product of:
5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
28.0 = termFreq=28.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3262)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: KO 36(2009) no.1, S.62-63 (K. La Barre): "This special issue of Axiomathes presents an ambitious dual agenda. It attempts to highlight aspects of facet analysis (as used in LIS) that are shared by cognate approaches in philosophy, psychology, linguistics and computer science. Secondarily, the issue aims to attract others to the study and use of facet analysis. The authors represent a blend of lifetime involvement with facet analysis, such as Vickery, Broughton, Beghtol, and Dahlberg; those with well developed research agendas such as Tudhope, and Priss; and relative newcomers such as Gnoli, Cheti and Paradisi, and Slavic. Omissions are inescapable, but a more balanced issue would have resulted from inclusion of at least one researcher from the Indian school of facet theory. Another valuable addition might have been a reaction to the issue by one of the chief critics of facet analysis. Potentially useful, but absent, is a comprehensive bibliography of resources for those wishing to engage in further study, that now lie scattered throughout the issue. Several of the papers assume relative familiarity with facet analytical concepts and definitions, some of which are contested even within LIS. Gnoli's introduction (p. 127-130) traces the trajectory, extensions and new developments of this analytico- synthetic approach to subject access, while providing a laundry list of cognate approaches that are similar to facet analysis. This brief essay and the article by Priss (p. 243-255) directly addresses this first part of Gnoli's agenda. Priss provides detailed discussion of facet-like structures in computer science (p. 245- 246), and outlines the similarity between Formal Concept Analysis and facets. This comparison is equally fruitful for researchers in computer science and library and information science. By bridging into a discussion of visualization challenges for facet display, further research is also invited. Many of the remaining papers comprehensively detail the intellectual heritage of facet analysis (Beghtol; Broughton, p. 195-198; Dahlberg; Tudhope and Binding, p. 213-215; Vickery). Beghtol's (p. 131-144) examination of the origins of facet theory through the lens of the textbooks written by Ranganathan's mentor W.C.B. Sayers (1881-1960), Manual of Classification (1926, 1944, 1955) and a textbook written by Mills A Modern Outline of Classification (1964), serves to reveal the deep intellectual heritage of the changes in classification theory over time, as well as Ranganathan's own influence on and debt to Sayers.
Several of the papers are clearly written as primers and neatly address the second agenda item: attracting others to the study and use of facet analysis. The most valuable papers are written in clear, approachable language. Vickery's paper (p. 145-160) is a clarion call for faceted classification and facet analysis. The heart of the paper is a primer for central concepts and techniques. Vickery explains the value of using faceted classification in document retrieval. Also provided are potential solutions to thorny interface and display issues with facets. Vickery looks to complementary themes in knowledge organization, such as thesauri and ontologies as potential areas for extending the facet concept. Broughton (p. 193-210) describes a rigorous approach to the application of facet analysis in the creation of a compatible thesaurus from the schedules of the 2nd edition of the Bliss Classification (BC2). This discussion of exemplary faceted thesauri, recent standards work, and difficulties encountered in the project will provide valuable guidance for future research in this area. Slavic (p. 257-271) provides a challenge to make faceted classification come 'alive' through promoting the use of machine-readable formats for use and exchange in applications such as Topic Maps and SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization Systems), and as supported by the standard BS8723 (2005) Structured Vocabulary for Information Retrieval. She also urges designers of faceted classifications to get involved in standards work. Cheti and Paradisi (p. 223-241) outline a basic approach to converting an existing subject indexing tool, the Nuovo Soggetario, into a faceted thesaurus through the use of facet analysis. This discussion, well grounded in the canonical literature, may well serve as a primer for future efforts. Also useful for those who wish to construct faceted thesauri is the article by Tudhope and Binding (p. 211-222). This contains an outline of basic elements to be found in exemplar faceted thesauri, and a discussion of project FACET (Faceted Access to Cultural heritage Terminology) with algorithmically-based semantic query expansion in a dataset composed of items from the National Museum of Science and Industry indexed with AAT (Art and Architecture Thesaurus). This paper looks to the future hybridization of ontologies and facets through standards developments such as SKOS because of the "lightweight semantics" inherent in facets.
Two of the papers revisit the interaction of facets with the theory of integrative levels, which posits that the organization of the natural world reflects increasingly interdependent complexity. This approach was tested as a basis for the creation of faceted classifications in the 1960s. These contemporary treatments of integrative levels are not discipline-driven as were the early approaches, but instead are ontological and phenomenological in focus. Dahlberg (p. 161-172) outlines the creation of the ICC (Information Coding System) and the application of the Systematifier in the generation of facets and the creation of a fully faceted classification. Gnoli (p. 177-192) proposes the use of fundamental categories as a way to redefine facets and fundamental categories in "more universal and level-independent ways" (p. 192). Given that Axiomathes has a stated focus on "contemporary issues in cognition and ontology" and the following thesis: "that real advances in contemporary science may depend upon a consideration of the origins and intellectual history of ideas at the forefront of current research," this venue seems well suited for the implementation of the stated agenda, to illustrate complementary approaches and to stimulate research. As situated, this special issue may well serve as a bridge to a more interdisciplinary dialogue about facet analysis than has previously been the case."
-
Dimensions of knowledge : facets for knowledge organization (2017)
0.01
0.009283871 = product of:
0.018567743 = sum of:
0.018567743 = product of:
0.055703226 = sum of:
0.055703226 = weight(_text_:p in 4154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055703226 = score(doc=4154,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1619138 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.34403014 = fieldWeight in 4154, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4154)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Content
- Inhalt: Richard P. Smiraglia: A Brief Introduction to Facets in Knowledge Organization / Kathryn La Barre: Interrogating Facet Theory: Decolonizing Knowledge Organization / Joseph T. Tennis: Never Facets Alone: The Evolving Thought and Persistent Problems in Ranganathan's Theories of Classification / M. P. Satija and Dong-Guen Oh: The DDC and the Knowledge Categories: Dewey did Faceting without Knowing It / Claudio Gnoli: Classifying Phenomena Part 3: Facets / Rick Szostak: Facet Analysis Without Facet Indicators / Elizabeth Milonas: An Examination of Facets within Search Engine Result Pages / Richard P. Smiraglia: Facets for Clustering and Disambiguation: The Domain Discourse of Facets in Knowledge Organization
-
Fairthorne, R.A.: Temporal structure in bibliographic classification (1985)
0.01
0.009096299 = product of:
0.018192599 = sum of:
0.018192599 = product of:
0.054577794 = sum of:
0.054577794 = weight(_text_:p in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054577794 = score(doc=3651,freq=16.0), product of:
0.1619138 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.33707932 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
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.
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.
-
Keilty, P.: Tabulating queer : space, perversion, and belonging (2009)
0.01
0.008576073 = product of:
0.017152146 = sum of:
0.017152146 = product of:
0.051456433 = sum of:
0.051456433 = weight(_text_:p in 3253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051456433 = score(doc=3253,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1619138 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.31780142 = fieldWeight in 3253, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3253)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Gödert, W.: Strukturierung von Klassifikationssystemen und Online-Retrieval (1995)
0.01
0.008372342 = product of:
0.016744684 = sum of:
0.016744684 = product of:
0.050234053 = sum of:
0.050234053 = weight(_text_:j in 922) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050234053 = score(doc=922,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14308962 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.35106707 = fieldWeight in 922, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=922)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Aufbau und Erschließung begrifflicher Datenbanken: Beiträge zur bibliothekarischen Klassifikation. Eine Auswahl von Vorträgen der Jahrestagungen 1993 (Kaiserslautern) und 1994 (Oldenburg) der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation. Hrsg.: H. Havekost u. H.-J. Wätjen
-
Connaway, L.S.; Sievert, M.C.: Comparison of three classification systems for information on health insurance (1996)
0.01
0.008134987 = product of:
0.016269974 = sum of:
0.016269974 = product of:
0.04880992 = sum of:
0.04880992 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04880992 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15769506 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7242, 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=7242)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 4.1997 21:10:19
-
Belayche, C.: ¬A propos de la classification de Dewey (1997)
0.01
0.008134987 = product of:
0.016269974 = sum of:
0.016269974 = product of:
0.04880992 = sum of:
0.04880992 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04880992 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15769506 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1171, 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=1171)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Bulletin d'informations de l'Association des Bibliothecaires Francais. 1997, no.175, S.22-23
-
Lin, W.-Y.C.: ¬The concept and applications of faceted classifications (2006)
0.01
0.008134987 = product of:
0.016269974 = sum of:
0.016269974 = product of:
0.04880992 = sum of:
0.04880992 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04880992 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15769506 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 27. 5.2007 22:19:35
-
Lorenz, B.: Zur Theorie und Terminologie der bibliothekarischen Klassifikation (2018)
0.01
0.008134987 = product of:
0.016269974 = sum of:
0.016269974 = product of:
0.04880992 = sum of:
0.04880992 = weight(_text_:22 in 4339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04880992 = score(doc=4339,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15769506 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503219 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4339, 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=4339)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Pages
- S.1-22
