Search (47 results, page 1 of 3)

0.055236083 = product of:
  0.110472165 = sum of:
    0.110472165 = product of:
      0.16570824 = sum of:
        0.12626743 = weight(_text_:universal in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12626743 = score(doc=1428,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.49394834 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
        0.039440814 = weight(_text_:22 in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039440814 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16990048 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.042089146 = product of:
  0.08417829 = sum of:
    0.08417829 = product of:
      0.25253487 = sum of:
        0.25253487 = weight(_text_:universal in 17) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25253487 = score(doc=17,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.9878967 = fieldWeight in 17, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=17)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg

0.042089146 = product of:
  0.08417829 = sum of:
    0.08417829 = product of:
      0.25253487 = sum of:
        0.25253487 = weight(_text_:universal in 34) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25253487 = score(doc=34,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.9878967 = fieldWeight in 34, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=34)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg

0.035757046 = product of:
  0.07151409 = sum of:
    0.07151409 = product of:
      0.107271135 = sum of:
        0.07440379 = weight(_text_:universal in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07440379 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.29106182 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
        0.032867346 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032867346 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16990048 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = 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)

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

0.035074286 = product of:
  0.07014857 = sum of:
    0.07014857 = product of:
      0.21044572 = sum of:
        0.21044572 = weight(_text_:universal in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21044572 = score(doc=50,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.8232472 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Universal classification II: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg

0.029761516 = product of:
  0.05952303 = sum of:
    0.05952303 = product of:
      0.1785691 = sum of:
        0.1785691 = weight(_text_:universal in 6580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1785691 = score(doc=6580,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.6985484 = fieldWeight in 6580, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6580)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg

0.028059429 = product of:
  0.056118857 = sum of:
    0.056118857 = product of:
      0.16835657 = sum of:
        0.16835657 = weight(_text_:universal in 3516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16835657 = score(doc=3516,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.65859777 = fieldWeight in 3516, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3516)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A universal non-discipline-based classification is a complement to, rather than substitute for, domain-specific classifications. Cognitive work analysis suggests that especially interdisciplinary researchers but also specialized researchers would benefit from both types of classification. Both practical and theoretical considerations point to complementarity. The research efforts of scholars pursuing both types of classification can thus usefully reinforce each other.

0.024552 = product of:
  0.049104 = sum of:
    0.049104 = product of:
      0.147312 = sum of:
        0.147312 = weight(_text_:universal in 5659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.147312 = score(doc=5659,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.576273 = fieldWeight in 5659, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5659)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This proposed new classification scheme is based on two main elements: hierarchism and binary theory. Hence, it is called Universal Binary Classification (UBC). Some advantages of this classification are highlighted including are subject heading development, construction of a thesaurus and all terms with meaningful features arranged in tabular form that can help researchers, through a semantic process, to find what they need. This classification scheme is fully consistent with the classification of knowledge. The classification of knowledge is also based on hierarchism and binary principle. Finally, a survey on randomly selected books in McLennan Library of McGill University is presented to compare the codes of this new classification with the currently employed Library of Congress Classification (LCC) numbers in the discipline of Library and Information Sciences.

Object

Universal Binary Classification

0.024552 = product of:
  0.049104 = sum of:
    0.049104 = product of:
      0.147312 = sum of:
        0.147312 = weight(_text_:universal in 1483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.147312 = score(doc=1483,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.576273 = fieldWeight in 1483, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1483)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Facet analysis has been one of the foremost contenders as a design principle for information retrieval classifications, both manual and electronic in the last fifty years. Evidence is presented that the facet concept has a claim to be considered as a method of subdivision that is cognitively available to human beings, regardless of language, culture, or academic discipline. The possibility that faceting is a universal method of subdivision enhances the claim that facet analysis as an unusually useful design principle for information retrieval classifications in any field. This possibility needs further investigation in an age when information access across boundaries is both necessary and possible.

0.021044573 = product of:
  0.042089146 = sum of:
    0.042089146 = product of:
      0.12626743 = sum of:
        0.12626743 = weight(_text_:universal in 47) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12626743 = score(doc=47,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.49394834 = fieldWeight in 47, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=47)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

For the purpose of establishing compatibility between the major universal classification systems in use, their structure principles were investigated and crucial points of difficulty for this undertaking were looked for, in order to relate the guiding classes, e.g. of the DDC, UDC, LCC, BC, and CC, to the subject groups of the ICC. With the help of a matrix into whose fields all subject groups of the ICC were inserted, it was not difficult at all to enter the notations of the universal classification systems mentioned. However, differences in terms of level of subdivision were found, as well as differences of occurrences. Most, though not all, of the fields of the ICC matrix could be completely filled with the corresponding notations of the other systems. Through this matrix, a first table of some 81 equivalences was established on which further work regarding the next levels of subject fields can be based

0.021044573 = product of:
  0.042089146 = sum of:
    0.042089146 = product of:
      0.12626743 = sum of:
        0.12626743 = weight(_text_:universal in 1084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12626743 = score(doc=1084,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.49394834 = fieldWeight in 1084, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1084)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A synthetic and universal approach to classification which allows the free combination of basic concepts would better address a variety of challenges in classifying both humanities scholarship and the works of art (including literature) that humanists study. Four key characteristics of this classificatory approach are stressed: a universal non-discipline-based approach, a synthetic approach that allows free combination of any concepts but stresses a sentence-like structure, emphasis on basic concepts (for which there are broadly shared understandings across groups and individuals), and finally classification of works also in terms of the theories, methods, and perspectives applied. The implications of these four characteristics, alone or (often) in concert, for many aspects of classification in the humanities are discussed. Several advantages are found both for classifying humanities scholarship and works of art. The se four characteristics are each found in the Basic Concepts Classification (which is briefly compared to other faceted classifications), but each could potentially be adopted elsewhere as well.

0.019841012 = product of:
  0.039682023 = sum of:
    0.039682023 = product of:
      0.11904607 = sum of:
        0.11904607 = weight(_text_:universal in 8276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11904607 = score(doc=8276,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.46569893 = fieldWeight in 8276, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8276)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article is a selective review of recent studies in classification and indexing theory. A number of important problems are discussed, including subjectivity versus objectivity, theories of indexing, the theoretical role of automation, and theoretical approaches to a universal classification scheme. Interestingly, much of the work appears to have been done outside the United States. After reviewing the theoretical work itself, some possible reasons for the non-American origins of the work are explored

0.017537143 = product of:
  0.035074286 = sum of:
    0.035074286 = product of:
      0.10522286 = sum of:
        0.10522286 = weight(_text_:universal in 1893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10522286 = score(doc=1893,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.4116236 = fieldWeight in 1893, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1893)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to respond to the 2005 paper by Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen by suggesting that an exhaustive and universal classification of the phenomena that scholars study, and the methods and theories they apply, is feasible. It seeks to argue that such a classification is critical for interdisciplinary scholarship. Design/methodology/approach - The paper presents a literature-based conceptual analysis, taking Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen as its starting point. Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen had identified several difficulties that would be encountered in developing such a classification; the paper suggests how each of these can be overcome. It also urges a deductive approach as complementary to the inductive approach recommended by Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen. Findings - The paper finds that an exhaustive and universal classification of scholarly documents in terms of (at least) the phenomena that scholars study, and the theories and methods they apply, appears to be both possible and desirable. Practical implications - The paper suggests how such a project can be begun. In particular it stresses the importance of classifying documents in terms of causal links between phenomena. Originality/value - The paper links the information science, interdisciplinary, and study of science literatures, and suggests that the types of classification outlined above would be of great value to scientists/scholars, and that they are possible.

0.017537143 = product of:
  0.035074286 = sum of:
    0.035074286 = product of:
      0.10522286 = sum of:
        0.10522286 = weight(_text_:universal in 1758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10522286 = score(doc=1758,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.4116236 = fieldWeight in 1758, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1758)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper seeks to outline the central role of concepts in the knowledge universe, and the intertwining roles of works, instantiations, and documents. In particular the authors are interested in ontological and epistemological aspects of concepts and in the question to which extent there is a need for natural languages to link concepts to create meaningful patterns. Design/methodology/approach - The authors describe the quest for the smallest elements of knowledge from a historical perspective. They focus on the metaphor of the universe of knowledge and its impact on classification and retrieval of concepts. They outline the major components of an elementary theory of knowledge interaction. Findings - The paper outlines the major components of an elementary theory of knowledge interaction that is based on the structure of knowledge rather than on the content of documents, in which semantics becomes not a matter of synonymous concepts, but rather of coordinating knowledge structures. The evidence is derived from existing empirical research. Originality/value - The paper shifts the bases for knowledge organization from a search for a universal order to an understanding of a universal structure within which many context-dependent orders are possible.

0.017360885 = product of:
  0.03472177 = sum of:
    0.03472177 = product of:
      0.10416531 = sum of:
        0.10416531 = weight(_text_:universal in 1594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10416531 = score(doc=1594,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.40748656 = fieldWeight in 1594, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1594)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The paper explores the cultural construction of classification by identifying fundamental characteristics of classification and examining how these fit with other cultures. Foucault's method of discourse analysis is applied to selected texts an classification in two areas. The first area is classification originated in the dominant Western culture. The second area is classifications from indigenous cultures. It is concluded that classification research needs to have an increasing awareness of the cultural construction of classification schemes and to work with alternatives to approaches of fundamental universal principles of classification.

0.014880758 = product of:
  0.029761516 = sum of:
    0.029761516 = product of:
      0.08928455 = sum of:
        0.08928455 = weight(_text_:universal in 1586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08928455 = score(doc=1586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.3492742 = fieldWeight in 1586, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1586)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  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

0.014880758 = product of:
  0.029761516 = sum of:
    0.029761516 = product of:
      0.08928455 = sum of:
        0.08928455 = weight(_text_:universal in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08928455 = score(doc=2651,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.3492742 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.014880758 = product of:
  0.029761516 = sum of:
    0.029761516 = product of:
      0.08928455 = sum of:
        0.08928455 = weight(_text_:universal in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08928455 = score(doc=2072,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.3492742 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: SVENONIUS, E.: Classification: prospects, problems, and possibilities; BEALL, J.: Editing the Dewey Decimal Classification online: the evolution of the DDC database; BEGHTOL, C.: Toward a theory of fiction analysis for information storage and retrieval; CRAVEN, T.C.: Concept relation structures and their graphic display; FUGMANN, R.: Illusory goals in information science research; GILCHRIST, A.: UDC: the 1990's and beyond; GREEN, R.: The expression of syntagmatic relationships in indexing: are frame-based index languages the answer?; HUMPHREY, S.M.: Use and management of classification systems for knowledge-based indexing; MIKSA, F.L.: The concept of the universe of knowledge and the purpose of LIS classification; SCOTT, M. u. A.F. FONSECA: Methodology for functional appraisal of records and creation of a functional thesaurus; ALBRECHTSEN, H.: PRESS: a thesaurus-based information system for software reuse; AMAESHI, B.: A preliminary AAT compatible African art thesaurus; CHATTERJEE, A.: Structures of Indian classification systems of the pre-Ranganathan era and their impact on the Colon Classification; COCHRANE, P.A.: Indexing and searching thesauri, the Janus or Proteus of information retrieval; CRAVEN, T.C.: A general versus a special algorithm in the graphic display of thesauri; DAHLBERG, I.: The basis of a new universal classification system seen from a philosophy of science point of view: DRABENSTOTT, K.M., RIESTER, L.C. u. B.A.DEDE: Shelflisting using expert systems; FIDEL, R.: Thesaurus requirements for an intermediary expert system; GREEN, R.: Insights into classification from the cognitive sciences: ramifications for index languages; GROLIER, E. de: Towards a syndetic information retrieval system; GUENTHER, R.: The USMARC format for classification data: development and implementation; HOWARTH, L.C.: Factors influencing policies for the adoption and integration of revisions to classification schedules; HUDON, M.: Term definitions in subject thesauri: the Canadian literacy thesaurus experience; HUSAIN, S.: Notational techniques for the accomodation of subjects in Colon Classification 7th edition: theoretical possibility vis-à-vis practical need; KWASNIK, B.H. u. C. JORGERSEN: The exploration by means of repertory grids of semantic differences among names of official documents; MICCO, M.: Suggestions for automating the Library of Congress Classification schedules; PERREAULT, J.M.: An essay on the prehistory of general categories (II): G.W. Leibniz, Conrad Gesner; REES-POTTER, L.K.: How well do thesauri serve the social sciences?; REVIE, C.W. u. G. SMART: The construction and the use of faceted classification schema in technical domains; ROCKMORE, M.: Structuring a flexible faceted thsaurus record for corporate information retrieval; ROULIN, C.: Sub-thesauri as part of a metathesaurus; SMITH, L.C.: UNISIST revisited: compatibility in the context of collaboratories; STILES, W.G.: Notes concerning the use chain indexing as a possible means of simulating the inductive leap within artificial intelligence; SVENONIUS, E., LIU, S. u. B. SUBRAHMANYAM: Automation in chain indexing; TURNER, J.: Structure in data in the Stockshot database at the National Film Board of Canada; VIZINE-GOETZ, D.: The Dewey Decimal Classification as an online classification tool; WILLIAMSON, N.J.: Restructuring UDC: problems and possibilies; WILSON, A.: The hierarchy of belief: ideological tendentiousness in universal classification; WILSON, B.F.: An evaluation of the systematic botany schedule of the Universal Decimal Classification (English full edition, 1979); ZENG, L.: Research and development of classification and thesauri in China; CONFERENCE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

0.013146939 = product of:
  0.026293878 = sum of:
    0.026293878 = product of:
      0.07888163 = sum of:
        0.07888163 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07888163 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16990048 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.013146939 = product of:
  0.026293878 = sum of:
    0.026293878 = product of:
      0.07888163 = sum of:
        0.07888163 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07888163 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16990048 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00