Search (45 results, page 1 of 3)

0.06284553 = product of:
  0.2513821 = sum of:
    0.2513821 = weight(_text_:logic in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2513821 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2358082 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0304604 = idf(docFreq=288, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039102852 = queryNorm
        1.0660448 = fieldWeight in 290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0304604 = idf(docFreq=288, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=290)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.043693364 = product of:
  0.08738673 = sum of:
    0.0785569 = weight(_text_:logic in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0785569 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2358082 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0304604 = idf(docFreq=288, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039102852 = queryNorm
        0.333139 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0304604 = idf(docFreq=288, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
    0.008829828 = product of:
      0.026489483 = sum of:
        0.026489483 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026489483 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13693152 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039102852 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

For my segment of this program I'd like to focus on some basic qualities of classification schemes. These qualities are critical to our ability to truly organize knowledge for access. As I see it, there are at least five qualities of note. The first one of these properties that I want to talk about is "authoritative." By this I mean standardized, but I mean more than standardized with a built in consensus-building process. A classification scheme constructed by a collaborative, consensus-building process carries the approval, and the authority, of the discipline groups that contribute to it and that it affects... The next property of classification systems is "expandable," living, responsive, with a clear locus of responsibility for its continuous upkeep. The worst thing you can do with a thesaurus, or a classification scheme, is to finish it. You can't ever finish it because it reflects ongoing intellectual activity... The third property is "intuitive." That is, the system has to be approachable, it has to be transparent, or at least capable of being transparent. It has to have an underlying logic that supports the classification scheme but doesn't dominate it... The fourth property is "organized and logical." I advocate very strongly, and agree with Lois Chan, that classification must be based on a rule-based structure, on somebody's world-view of the syndetic structure... The fifth property is "universal" by which I mean the classification scheme needs be useable by any specific system or application, and be available as a language for multiple purposes.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 21(1995) no.2, S.19-22

0.038995963 = product of:
  0.15598385 = sum of:
    0.15598385 = product of:
      0.46795154 = sum of:
        0.46795154 = weight(_text_:bliss in 821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.46795154 = score(doc=821,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.27972588 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039102852 = queryNorm
            1.6728933 = fieldWeight in 821, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=821)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

LCSH

Bliss Bibliographic classification

PRECIS

Documents / Subject classification schemes: Bliss, Henry Evelyn / Bliss bibliographic classification / Texts

Subject

Bliss Bibliographic classification
Documents / Subject classification schemes: Bliss, Henry Evelyn / Bliss bibliographic classification / Texts

0.033674262 = product of:
  0.13469705 = sum of:
    0.13469705 = weight(_text_:logic in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13469705 = score(doc=1782,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.2358082 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0304604 = idf(docFreq=288, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039102852 = queryNorm
        0.57121444 = fieldWeight in 1782, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          6.0304604 = idf(docFreq=288, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1782)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Logic and the Organization of Information closely examines the historical and contemporary methodologies used to catalogue information objects-books, ebooks, journals, articles, web pages, images, emails, podcasts and more-in the digital era. This book provides an in-depth technical background for digital librarianship, and covers a broad range of theoretical and practical topics including: classification theory, topic annotation, automatic clustering, generalized synonymy and concept indexing, distributed libraries, semantic web ontologies and Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS). It also analyzes the challenges facing today's information architects, and outlines a series of techniques for overcoming them. Logic and the Organization of Information is intended for practitioners and professionals working at a design level as a reference book for digital librarianship. Advanced-level students, researchers and academics studying information science, library science, digital libraries and computer science will also find this book invaluable.

Footnote

Rez. in: J. Doc. 70(2014) no.4: "Books on the organization of information and knowledge, aimed at a library/information audience, tend to fall into two clear categories. Most are practical and pragmatic, explaining the "how" as much or more than the "why". Some are theoretical, in part or in whole, showing how the practice of classification, indexing, resource description and the like relates to philosophy, logic, and other foundational bases; the books by Langridge (1992) and by Svenonious (2000) are well-known examples this latter kind. To this category certainly belongs a recent book by Martin Frické (2012). The author takes the reader for an extended tour through a variety of aspects of information organization, including classification and taxonomy, alphabetical vocabularies and indexing, cataloguing and FRBR, and aspects of the semantic web. The emphasis throughout is on showing how practice is, or should be, underpinned by formal structures; there is a particular emphasis on first order predicate calculus. The advantages of a greater, and more explicit, use of symbolic logic is a recurring theme of the book. There is a particularly commendable historical dimension, often omitted in texts on this subject. It cannot be said that this book is entirely an easy read, although it is well written with a helpful index, and its arguments are generally well supported by clear and relevant examples. It is thorough and detailed, but thereby seems better geared to the needs of advanced students and researchers than to the practitioners who are suggested as a main market. For graduate students in library/information science and related disciplines, in particular, this will be a valuable resource. I would place it alongside Svenonious' book as the best insight into the theoretical "why" of information organization. It has evoked a good deal of interest, including a set of essay commentaries in Journal of Information Science (Gilchrist et al., 2013). Introducing these, Alan Gilchrist rightly says that Frické deserves a salute for making explicit the fundamental relationship between the ancient discipline of logic and modern information organization. If information science is to continue to develop, and make a contribution to the organization of the information environments of the future, then this book sets the groundwork for the kind of studies which will be needed." (D. Bawden)

0.031422764 = product of:
  0.12569106 = sum of:
    0.12569106 = weight(_text_:logic in 6929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12569106 = score(doc=6929,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2358082 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0304604 = idf(docFreq=288, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039102852 = queryNorm
        0.5330224 = fieldWeight in 6929, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0304604 = idf(docFreq=288, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6929)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Classic classification schemes are uni-dimensional, with few exceptions. One of the challenges of distance education and new learning strategies is that the proliferation of course work defies the traditional categorization. The rigidity of most present classification schemes does not mesh well with the burgeoning fluidity of the academic environment. One solution is a return to a largely forgotten area of study - classification theory. Some suggestions for exploration are nonmonotonic logic systems, neural network models, and non-library models.

0.031422764 = product of:
  0.12569106 = sum of:
    0.12569106 = weight(_text_:logic in 833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12569106 = score(doc=833,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2358082 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0304604 = idf(docFreq=288, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039102852 = queryNorm
        0.5330224 = fieldWeight in 833, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0304604 = idf(docFreq=288, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=833)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article explores the connections between Melvil Dewey and Hegelianism and Charles Cutter and the Scottish Common Sense philosophers. It traces the practice of hierarchy from these philosophical influences to Dewey and Cutter and their legacy to today's Dewey Decimal Classification and Library of Congress Subject Headings. The ubiquity of hierarchy is linked to Dewey's and Cutter's metaphor of organizing the mob of information into an orderly army using the tool of logic.

0.027406532 = product of:
  0.054813065 = sum of:
    0.04421727 = product of:
      0.1326518 = sum of:
        0.1326518 = weight(_text_:bliss in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1326518 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27972588 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039102852 = queryNorm
            0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.010595793 = product of:
      0.031787377 = sum of:
        0.031787377 = weight(_text_:22 in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031787377 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13693152 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039102852 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The paper discusses the challenges of faceted vocabulary organization in universal classifications which treat the universe of knowledge as a coherent whole and in which the concepts and subjects in different disciplines are shared, related and combined. The authors illustrate the challenges of the facet analytical approach using, as an example, the revision of class 72 in UDC. The paper reports on the research undertaken in 2013 as preparation for the revision. This consisted of analysis of concept organization in the UDC schedules in comparison with the Art & Architecture Thesaurus and class W of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification. The paper illustrates how such research can contribute to a better understanding of the field and may lead to improvements in the facet structure of this segment of the UDC vocabulary.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.024442015 = product of:
  0.09776806 = sum of:
    0.09776806 = product of:
      0.29330418 = sum of:
        0.29330418 = weight(_text_:bliss in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.29330418 = score(doc=3621,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.27972588 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039102852 = queryNorm
            1.0485414 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Henry Evelyn Bliss (1870-1955) devoted several decades of his life to the study of classification and the development of the Bibliographic Classification scheme while serving as a librarian in the College of the City of New York. In the course of the development of the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss developed a body of classification theory published in a number of articles and books, among which the best known are The Organization of Knowledge and the System of the Sciences (1929), Organization of Knowledge in Libraries and the Subject Approach to Books (1933; 2nd ed., 1939), and the lengthy preface to A Bibliographic Classification (Volumes 1-2, 1940; 2nd ed., 1952). In developing the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss carefully established its philosophical and theoretical basis, more so than was attempted by the makers of other classification schemes, with the possible exception of S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.) and his Colon Classification. The basic principles established by Bliss for the Bibliographic Classification are: consensus, collocation of related subjects, subordination of special to general and gradation in specialty, and the relativity of classes and of classification (hence alternative location and alternative treatment). In the preface to the schedules of A Bibliographic Classification, Bliss spells out the general principles of classification as weIl as principles specifically related to his scheme. The first volume of the schedules appeared in 1940. In 1952, he issued a second edition of the volume with a rewritten preface, from which the following excerpt is taken, and with the addition of a "Concise Synopsis," which is also included here to illustrate the principles of classificatory structure. In the excerpt reprinted below, Bliss discusses the correlation between classes, concepts, and terms, as weIl as the hierarchical structure basic to his classification scheme. In his discussion of cross-classification, Bliss recognizes the "polydimensional" nature of classification and the difficulties inherent in the two-dimensional approach which is characteristic of linear classification. This is one of the earliest works in which the multidimensional nature of classification is recognized. The Bibliographic Classification did not meet with great success in the United States because the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Library of Congress Classification were already weIl ensconced in American libraries by then. Nonetheless, it attracted considerable attention in the British Commonwealth and elsewhere in the world. A committee was formed in Britain which later became the Bliss Classification Association. A faceted edition of the scheme has been in preparation under the direction of J. Mills and V. Broughton. Several parts of this new edition, entitled Bliss Bibliographic Classification, have been published.

Footnote

Original in: Bliss, H.E.: A bibliographic classification extended by systematic auxuliary schedules for composite specification and notation. vols 1-2. 2nd ed. New York: Wilson 1952. S.3-11.

0.019639226 = product of:
  0.0785569 = sum of:
    0.0785569 = weight(_text_:logic in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0785569 = score(doc=2291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2358082 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0304604 = idf(docFreq=288, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039102852 = queryNorm
        0.333139 = fieldWeight in 2291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0304604 = idf(docFreq=288, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2291)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Disciplines are felt by many to be a constraint in classification, though they are a structuring principle of most bibliographic classification schemes. A non-disciplinary approach has been explored by the Classification Research Group, and research in this direction has been resumed recently by the Integrative Level Classification project. This paper focuses on the role and the definition of facets in non-disciplinary schemes. A generalized definition of facets is suggested with reference to predicate logic, allowing for having facets of phenomena as well as facets of disciplines. The general categories under which facets are often subsumed can be related ontologically to the evolutionary sequence of integrative levels. As a facet can be semantically connected with phenomena from any other part of a general scheme, its values can belong to three types, here called extra-defined foci (either special or general), and context-defined foci. Non-disciplinary freely faceted classification is being tested by applying it to little bibliographic samples stored in a MySQL database, and developing Web search interfaces to demonstrate possible uses of the described techniques.

0.019639226 = product of:
  0.0785569 = sum of:
    0.0785569 = weight(_text_:logic in 1099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0785569 = score(doc=1099,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2358082 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0304604 = idf(docFreq=288, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039102852 = queryNorm
        0.333139 = fieldWeight in 1099, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0304604 = idf(docFreq=288, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1099)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Hierarchies abound to help us organize our world. A hierarchy places items into a general order, where more 'general' is also more 'abstract'. The etymology of hierarchy is grounded in notions of religious and social rank. This article, after a historical review, focuses on knowledge systems, an interloper of the term hierarchy since at least the 1800s. Hierarchies in knowledge systems include taxonomies, classification systems, or thesauri in information science, and systems for representing information and knowledge to computers, notably ontologies and knowledge representation languages. Hierarchies are the logical underpinning of inference and reasoning in these systems, as well as the scaffolding for classification and inheritance. Hierarchies in knowledge systems express subsumption relations that have flexible variants, which we can represent algorithmically, and thus computationally. This article dissects that variability, leading to a proposed typology of hierarchies useful to knowledge systems. The article argues through a perspective informed by Charles Peirce that natural hierarchies are real, can be logically determined, and are the appropriate basis for knowledge systems. Description logics and semantic language standards reflect this perspective, importantly through their open-world logic and vocabularies for generalized subsumption hierarchies. Recent research suggests possible mechanisms for the emergence of natural hierarchies.

0.014739089 = product of:
  0.058956355 = sum of:
    0.058956355 = product of:
      0.17686906 = sum of:
        0.17686906 = weight(_text_:bliss in 1603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17686906 = score(doc=1603,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27972588 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039102852 = queryNorm
            0.63229424 = fieldWeight in 1603, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1603)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses the basic criteria for comparison of classification for libraries. Identifies a set of intellectual criteria, derived from the general theory of library classification as expounded by Dewey, Bliss, and Ranganathan. Compares LC, DC, and BC in relation criteria namely - order, university, hospitality, adaptability, terminology, relationship, synthesis, notational features - simplicity, brevity, expressiveness, specifity, synonymity, flexibility, correlation, case of use, revision and practical use. Highlights the value of comparative studies among classification schemes

0.014739089 = product of:
  0.058956355 = sum of:
    0.058956355 = product of:
      0.17686906 = sum of:
        0.17686906 = weight(_text_:bliss in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17686906 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27972588 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039102852 = queryNorm
            0.63229424 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In relation to indexing, one of the chief implications of cognitive epistemology is the necessity for redefining knowledge representation concepts for information filing and retrieval purposes. Such a redefinition involves abandoning the traditional, hierarchical, closed-structure classification model. Considers the following in detail: a semiotic critique of classification principles; Ranganathan's classification theory; Ranganathan and cognitive epistemology; and some reflections on the DDC and the Bliss Bibliographic Classification

0.013027637 = product of:
  0.05211055 = sum of:
    0.05211055 = product of:
      0.15633164 = sum of:
        0.15633164 = weight(_text_:bliss in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15633164 = score(doc=5895,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.27972588 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039102852 = queryNorm
            0.5588744 = fieldWeight in 5895, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5895)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Broughton is one of the key people working on the second edition of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (BC2). Her article has a brief, informative history of facets, then discusses semantic vs. syntactic relationships, standard facets used by Ranganathan and the Classification Research Group, facet analysis and citation order, and how to build subject indexes out of faceted classifications, all with occasional reference to digital environments and hypertext, but never with any specifics. It concludes by saying of faceted classification that the "capacity which it has to create highly sophisticated structures for the accommodation of complex objects suggests that it is worth investigation as an organizational tool for digital materials, and that the results of such investigation would be knowledge structures of unparalleled utility and elegance." How to build them is left to the reader, but this article provides an excellent starting point. It includes an example that shows how general concepts can be applied to a small set of documents and subjects, and how terms can be adapted to suit the material and users

0.011783536 = product of:
  0.047134142 = sum of:
    0.047134142 = weight(_text_:logic in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047134142 = score(doc=2072,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2358082 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0304604 = idf(docFreq=288, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039102852 = queryNorm
        0.1998834 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0304604 = idf(docFreq=288, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This volume deals with both theoretical and empirical research in classification and encompasses universal classification systems, special classification systems, thesauri and the place of classification in a broad spectrum of document and information systems. Papers fall into one or three major areas as follows: 1) general principles and policies 2) structure and logic in classification; and empirical investigation; classification in the design of various types of document/information systems. The papers originate from the ISCCR '91 conference and have been selected according to the following criteria: relevance to the conference theme; importance of the topic in the representation and organization of knowledge; quality; and originality in terms of potential contribution to research and new knowledge.

0.0110543175 = product of:
  0.04421727 = sum of:
    0.04421727 = product of:
      0.1326518 = sum of:
        0.1326518 = weight(_text_:bliss in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1326518 = score(doc=2631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27972588 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039102852 = queryNorm
            0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0110543175 = product of:
  0.04421727 = sum of:
    0.04421727 = product of:
      0.1326518 = sum of:
        0.1326518 = weight(_text_:bliss in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1326518 = score(doc=2651,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27972588 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039102852 = queryNorm
            0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The paper analyses the importance of data presentation and modelling and its role in improving the management, use and exchange of analytico-synthetic classifications in automated systems. Inefficiencies, in this respect, hinder the automation of classification systems that offer the possibility of building compound index/search terms. The lack of machine readable data expressing the semantics and structure of a classification vocabulary has negative effects on information management and retrieval, thus restricting the potential of both automated systems and classifications themselves. The authors analysed the data representation structure of three general analytico-synthetic classification systems (BC2-Bliss Bibliographic Classification; BSO-Broad System of Ordering; UDC-Universal Decimal Classification) and put forward some core requirements for classification data representation

0.0110543175 = product of:
  0.04421727 = sum of:
    0.04421727 = product of:
      0.1326518 = sum of:
        0.1326518 = weight(_text_:bliss in 831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1326518 = score(doc=831,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27972588 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039102852 = queryNorm
            0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 831, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=831)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The main object of the paper is to demonstrate in detail the role of classification in information retrieval (IR) and the design of classificatory structures by the application of logical division to all forms of the content of records, subject and imaginative. The natural product of such division is a faceted classification. The latter is seen not as a particular kind of library classification but the only viable form enabling the locating and relating of information to be optimally predictable. A detailed exposition of the practical steps in facet analysis is given, drawing on the experience of the new Bliss Classification (BC2). The continued existence of the library as a highly organized information store is assumed. But, it is argued, it must acknowledge the relevance of the revolution in library classification that has taken place. It considers also how alphabetically arranged subject indexes may utilize controlled use of categorical (generically inclusive) and syntactic relations to produce similarly predictable locating and relating systems for IR.

0.0110543175 = product of:
  0.04421727 = sum of:
    0.04421727 = product of:
      0.1326518 = sum of:
        0.1326518 = weight(_text_:bliss in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1326518 = score(doc=2270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27972588 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039102852 = queryNorm
            0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Classifications of natural phenomena demonstrate the applicability of discourse analysis in finding the importance of concepts such as warrant for categorization and classification. Temperature scales provide a body of official literature for close consideration. Official documents of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) reveal the reasoning behind choices affecting these standards. A more cursory scrutiny of the Saffir-Simpson Scale through scholarly publications and documentation from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (KIST) indicates the potential of this form of analysis. The same holds true for an examination of the definition of what is a planet as determined by the International Astronomical Union. As Sayers, Richardson, and Bliss have indicated, there seem to be principles and a reliance on context that bridge the differences between natural and artificial, scientific and bibliographic classifications.

0.0110543175 = product of:
  0.04421727 = sum of:
    0.04421727 = product of:
      0.1326518 = sum of:
        0.1326518 = weight(_text_:bliss in 2069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1326518 = score(doc=2069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27972588 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039102852 = queryNorm
            0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 2069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2069)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This book provides a coherent account of the theory of classification. It discusses the contributions made by theoreticians like E.C. Richardson, J.B. Brown, W. Hulme, W.C. Berwick Sayers, H.E. Bliss and S.R. Ranganathan. However, the theory put forward by S.R. Ranganathan predominates the whole book because his contribution is far more than anybody else's. Five major schemes - DDC, UDC, LCC, CC, and BC - have also been discussed. Library classification is a specialized area of study. In recent years, library classification has become a vast and complicated field of study using highly technical terminology. A special attempt has been made to provide descriptions as simple and direct as could be possible. To illustrate the theory of classification, large number of examples have been given from all major schemes so that an average student ould also grasp the concepts easily. This book has been especially written to meet the requirements of students, preparing for their library science, documentation, information science diplomas and degrees.

0.00921193 = product of:
  0.03684772 = sum of:
    0.03684772 = product of:
      0.11054316 = sum of:
        0.11054316 = weight(_text_:bliss in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11054316 = score(doc=2720,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27972588 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039102852 = queryNorm
            0.3951839 = fieldWeight in 2720, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, 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.