Search (45 results, page 1 of 3)

0.043869503 = product of:
  0.087739006 = sum of:
    0.07161439 = weight(_text_:space in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07161439 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24842183 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047605187 = queryNorm
        0.28827736 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
    0.016124614 = product of:
      0.032249227 = sum of:
        0.032249227 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032249227 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3483, 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=3483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Classification is an activity that transcends time and space and that bridges the divisions between different languages and cultures, including the divisions between academic disciplines. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. Classifications for infonnation retrieval can be called "professional" classifications and classifications in other fields can be called "naïve" classifications because they are developed by people who have no particular interest in classificatory issues. The general purpose of naïve classification systems is to discover new knowledge. In contrast, the general purpose of information retrieval classifications is to classify pre-existing knowledge. Different classificatory purposes may thus inform systems that are intended to span the cultural specifics of the globalized information society. This paper builds an previous research into the purposes and characteristics of naïve classifications. It describes some of the relationships between the purpose and context of a naive classification, the units of analysis used in it, and the theory that the context and the units of analysis imply.

Pages

S.19-22

0.043869503 = product of:
  0.087739006 = sum of:
    0.07161439 = weight(_text_:space in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07161439 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24842183 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047605187 = queryNorm
        0.28827736 = fieldWeight in 1778, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1778)
    0.016124614 = product of:
      0.032249227 = sum of:
        0.032249227 = weight(_text_:22 in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032249227 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to introduce a new similarity method to gauge the differences between two subject hierarchical structures. Design/methodology/approach - In the proposed similarity measure, nodes on two hierarchical structures are projected onto a two-dimensional space, respectively, and both structural similarity and subject similarity of nodes are considered in the similarity between the two hierarchical structures. The extent to which the structural similarity impacts on the similarity can be controlled by adjusting a parameter. An experiment was conducted to evaluate soundness of the measure. Eight experts whose research interests were information retrieval and information organization participated in the study. Results from the new measure were compared with results from the experts. Findings - The evaluation shows strong correlations between the results from the new method and the results from the experts. It suggests that the similarity method achieved satisfactory results. Practical implications - Hierarchical structures that are found in subject directories, taxonomies, classification systems, and other classificatory structures play an extremely important role in information organization and information representation. Measuring the similarity between two subject hierarchical structures allows an accurate overarching understanding of the degree to which the two hierarchical structures are similar. Originality/value - Both structural similarity and subject similarity of nodes were considered in the proposed similarity method, and the extent to which the structural similarity impacts on the similarity can be adjusted. In addition, a new evaluation method for a hierarchical structure similarity was presented.

Date

8. 4.2015 16:22:13

0.040511217 = product of:
  0.16204487 = sum of:
    0.16204487 = weight(_text_:space in 3253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16204487 = score(doc=3253,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24842183 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047605187 = queryNorm
        0.6522972 = fieldWeight in 3253, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3253)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Considering fields as diverse as the history of science, Internet studies, border studies, and coalition politics, the article gives an historical overview of how the knowledge around queer phenomena has been structured, tabulated, and spacialized: the hazards, coercive and productive qualities, as well as queer's paradoxical relationship as both resistant to and reliant on categories, classification, and knowledge structures. In the process, the article also considers the development of Western hierarchical knowledge structures in relation to societal power dynamics, proximity, and space.

0.025065036 = product of:
  0.100260146 = sum of:
    0.100260146 = weight(_text_:space in 510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100260146 = score(doc=510,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24842183 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047605187 = queryNorm
        0.4035883 = fieldWeight in 510, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=510)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Library patrons have innate expectations about how documents should be arranged. Useful classification schemes are those which conform to these expectations and are thereby psychologically comfortable. All schemes necessarily deviate from these expectations, but not to the same degree. The greater the divergence from this mental standard with a scheme, the greater the psychological discomfort the patron will experience and the less useful the patron will find it. Using as an example the discipline of anthropology, this article develops a measure of the deviation of library classifications from collocation in mental space

0.021484317 = product of:
  0.08593727 = sum of:
    0.08593727 = weight(_text_:space in 2204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08593727 = score(doc=2204,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24842183 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047605187 = queryNorm
        0.34593284 = fieldWeight in 2204, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2204)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Both basic and applied research on the construction, implementation, maintenance, and evaluation of classification schemes is called classification theory. If we employ Ritzer's metatheoretical method of analysis on the over one-hundred year-old body of literature, we can se categories of theory emerge. This paper looks at one particular part of knowledge organization work, namely classification theory, and asks 1) what are the contours of this intellectual space, and, 2) what have we produced in the theoretical reflection on constructing, implementing, and evaluating classification schemes? The preliminary findings from this work are that classification theory can be separated into three kinds: foundational classification theory, first-order classification theory, and second-order classification theory, each with its own concerns and objects of study.

0.017903598 = product of:
  0.07161439 = sum of:
    0.07161439 = weight(_text_:space in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07161439 = score(doc=423,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24842183 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047605187 = queryNorm
        0.28827736 = fieldWeight in 423, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=423)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Library of Congress is a federal institution that occupies a critical space where medical, social science, political, literary, and other discourses are collected, arranged, and disseminated to Congress and the public. LC plays a vital part in discipline creation and maintenance, as it actively reproduces specific discourses, while silencing others, such as those from the humanities, social sciences, and the general public. Alternatively, social tagging seems to disregard conventions of disciplinarity and allows much more diversity of representations. Tagging may provide important insight for organizing materials in research libraries, as choices between single disciplines are no longer necessary and voices from various fields and audiences can name resources using their own terms, whether they prefer medical/technical jargon or everyday words. As the academy moves more toward interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary studies and aims to find the intersections across political, social, scientific, and cultural phenomena, the implications and effects of library organization based on classes and subjects needs to be interrogated.

0.014322878 = product of:
  0.05729151 = sum of:
    0.05729151 = weight(_text_:space in 2639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05729151 = score(doc=2639,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24842183 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047605187 = queryNorm
        0.23062189 = fieldWeight in 2639, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2639)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

1. Introduction The title of this paper is taken from a TV show which has gained considerable popularity in North America: A Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, in which a group of gay men subject a helpless straight male to a complete fashion makeover. In facet analysis, this would probably be seen as an "operation upon" something, and the Bliss Bibliographic Classification would place it roughly two-thirds of the way along its facet order, after "types" and "materials," but before "space" and "time." But the link between gay communities and facet analysis extends beyond the facetious title. As Web-based information resources for gay and lesbian users continue to grow, Web sites that cater to, or at least refrain from discriminating against gay and lesbian users are faced with a daunting challenge when trying to organize these diverse resources in a way that facilitates congenial browsing. And principles of faceted classification, with their emphasis an clear and consistent principles of subdivision and their care in defining the order of subdivisions, offer an important opportunity to use time-honoured classification principles to serve the growing needs of these communities. If faceted organization schemes are to work, however, we need to know more about gay and lesbian users, and how they categorize themselves and their information sources. This paper presents the results of an effort to learn more.

0.014322878 = product of:
  0.05729151 = sum of:
    0.05729151 = weight(_text_:space in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05729151 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24842183 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047605187 = queryNorm
        0.23062189 = fieldWeight in 2761, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2761)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper describes the cultural construction of classification as exemplified by the French Encyclopòudists, Jean d'Alembert and Denis Diderot, and the encyclopaedism of Samuel Taylor Coleridge analysing original texts digitized and encoded using XML and an adaptation of TEI. 1. Introduction This paper, focusing an encyclopaedism, is part of a larger study exploring the cultural construction of classification. The larger study explores possible foundations for bias in the structure of classifications with a view to more equitable practice. Bias in classification has been documented relative to race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality and other factors. Analyses and proposed solutions have addressed only acute biases in particular systems, not the systems themselves. The project tentatively identifies the systemic roots of bias are culturally specific and reflected in the structure of conventional classifcatory practices. A wide range of western cultural texts from classic Greek philosophy to twentieth-century ethnography is being analysed. The consistency with which certain presumptions are revealed, no matter how different the philosophical and social views of the authors, indicates their ubiquity in western thought, though it is not mirrored in many other cultures. We hope that an understanding of these fundamental cultural presumptions will make space for development of alternative approaches to knowledge organization that can work alongside conventional methods. This paper describes an example of the first phase of the project, which is a deconstruction developed from relevant texts. In the context of encyclopaedism the key texts used in this paper are Jean d'Alembert's Preliminary Discourse to the Encyclopedie, selections from Denis Diderot's contributions to the Encyclopedie, and Samuel Taylor Coleridge's Treatise an Method and Prospectus of the Encyclopedia Metropolitana. We are analysing these texts in digital form using Extensible Markup Language (XML) implemented via a document type definition (DTD) created for the purpose including elements of the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI). We will first explain the encoding methodology; then define the differences between the French Encyclopaedists and the English Coleridge; deconstruct these differences by allowing the commonalities between the texts to emerge; and, finally, examine their cultural specificity.

0.014322878 = product of:
  0.05729151 = sum of:
    0.05729151 = weight(_text_:space in 3636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05729151 = score(doc=3636,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24842183 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047605187 = queryNorm
        0.23062189 = fieldWeight in 3636, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3636)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

- adding a relational term ("operator") to identify and join terms; - indicating grammatical case with terms where this would help clarify relationships; and - analyzing elementary terms to reveal fundamental categories where needed. He further added that a standard order for showing relational factors was highly desirable. Eventually, some years later, he was able to suggest such an order. This was accepted by his peers in the Classification Research Group, and utilized by Derek Austin in PRECIS (q.v.). Vickery began where Farradane began - with perception (a sound base according to current cognitive psychology). From this came further recognition of properties, parts, constituents, organs, effects, reactions, operations (physical and mental), added to the original "identity," "difference," "class membership," and "species." By defining categories more carefully, Vickery arrived at six (in addition to space (geographic) and time): - personality, thing, substance (e.g., dog, bicycle, rose) - part (e.g., paw, wheel, leaf) - substance (e.g., copper, water, butter) - action (e.g., scattering) - property (e.g., length, velocity) - operation (e.g., analysis, measurement) Thus, as early as 1953, the foundations were already laid for research that ultimately produced very sophisticated systems, such as PRECIS.

0.012532518 = product of:
  0.050130073 = sum of:
    0.050130073 = weight(_text_:space in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050130073 = score(doc=3631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24842183 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047605187 = queryNorm
        0.20179415 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Among the theorists in the field of subject analysis in the twentieth century, none has been more influential than S. R. Ranganathan (1892-1972) of India, a mathematician by training who turned to librarianship and made some of the most far-reaching contributions to the theory of librarianship in general and subject analysis in particular. Dissatisfied with both the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Universal Decimal Classification, Ranganathan set out to develop his own system. His Colon Classification was first published in 1933 and went through six editions; the seventh edition was in progress when Ranganathan died in 1972. In the course of developing the Colon Classification, Ranganathan formulated a body of classification theory which was published in numerous writings, of which the best known are Elements of Library Classification (1945; 3rd ed., 1962) and Prolegomena to Library Classification (1967). Among the principles Ranganathan established, the most powerful and influential are those relating to facet analysis. Ranganathan demonstrated that facet analysis (breaking down subjects into their component parts) and synthesis (recombining these parts to fit the documents) provide the most viable approach to representing the contents of documents. Although the idea and use of facets, though not always called by that name, have been present for a long time (for instance, in the Dewey Decimal Classification and Charles A. Cutter's Expansive Classification), Ranganathan was the person who systematized the ideas and established principles for them. For his Colon Classification, Ranganathan identified five fundamental categories: Personality (P), Material (M), Energy (E), Space (S) and Time (T) and the citation order PMEST based an the idea of decreasing concreteness.

0.01010241 = product of:
  0.04040964 = sum of:
    0.04040964 = product of:
      0.08081928 = sum of:
        0.08081928 = weight(_text_:model in 3842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08081928 = score(doc=3842,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = queryNorm
            0.44150823 = fieldWeight in 3842, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3842)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Ranganathan's canons, principles, and postulates can easily confuse readers, especially because he revised and added to them in various editions of his many books. The Classification Research Group, who drew on Ranganathan's work as their basis for classification theory but developed it in their own way, has never clearly organized all their equivalent canons and principles. In this article Spiteri gathers the fundamental rules from both systems and compares and contrasts them. She makes her own clearer set of principles for constructing facets, stating the subject of a document, and designing notation. Spiteri's "simplified model" is clear and understandable, but certainly not simplistic. The model does not include methods for making a faceted system, but will serve as a very useful guide in how to turn initial work into a rigorous classification. Highly recommended

0.009721047 = product of:
  0.03888419 = sum of:
    0.03888419 = product of:
      0.07776838 = sum of:
        0.07776838 = weight(_text_:model in 2836) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07776838 = score(doc=2836,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = queryNorm
            0.42484146 = fieldWeight in 2836, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2836)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.009674768 = product of:
  0.03869907 = sum of:
    0.03869907 = product of:
      0.07739814 = sum of:
        0.07739814 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07739814 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.009674768 = product of:
  0.03869907 = sum of:
    0.03869907 = product of:
      0.07739814 = sum of:
        0.07739814 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07739814 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.009674768 = product of:
  0.03869907 = sum of:
    0.03869907 = product of:
      0.07739814 = sum of:
        0.07739814 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07739814 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

6. 5.2017 18:46:22

0.007776838 = product of:
  0.031107351 = sum of:
    0.031107351 = product of:
      0.062214702 = sum of:
        0.062214702 = weight(_text_:model in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062214702 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = queryNorm
            0.33987316 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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

0.006873818 = product of:
  0.027495272 = sum of:
    0.027495272 = product of:
      0.054990545 = sum of:
        0.054990545 = weight(_text_:model in 3021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054990545 = score(doc=3021,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = queryNorm
            0.30040827 = fieldWeight in 3021, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3021)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Classification is a transdisciplinary activity that occurs during all human pursuits. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. In information retrieval, the primary purpose of classification is to find knowledge that already exists, but one of the purposes of classification in other fields is to discover new knowledge. In this paper, classifications for information retrieval are called "professional" classifications because they are devised by people who have a professional interest in classification, and classifications for knowledge discovery are called "naive" classifications because they are devised by people who have no particular interest in studying classification as an end in itself. This paper compares the overall purposes and methods of these two kinds of classifications and provides a general model of the relationships between the two kinds of classificatory activity in the context of information studies. This model addresses issues of the influence of scholarly activity and communication an the creation and revision of classifications for the purposes of information retrieval and for the purposes of knowledge discovery. Further comparisons elucidate the relationships between the universality of classificatory methods and the specific purposes served by naive and professional classification systems.

0.006804733 = product of:
  0.027218932 = sum of:
    0.027218932 = product of:
      0.054437865 = sum of:
        0.054437865 = weight(_text_:model in 6991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054437865 = score(doc=6991,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = queryNorm
            0.29738903 = fieldWeight in 6991, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6991)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Stresses that S.R. Ranganathan was truly a great scholar, who made rich contribution to different aspects of library and information science, but is better known for his work in the field of library classification. discusses his distinctive contributions to classification such as normative principles, 3 plane model of work, freely faceted classification (involving facet analysis and the synthetic principle), postulational approach, fundamental categories and certain notational devices like the sector device, group notation device, emptying digit device and seminal mnemonic device. Regards these as seminal ideas forming the basis of his theory of library classification. Considers 7th ed. of the Colon Classification as the best example of the application of theses ideas

0.006804733 = product of:
  0.027218932 = sum of:
    0.027218932 = product of:
      0.054437865 = sum of:
        0.054437865 = weight(_text_:model in 5145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054437865 = score(doc=5145,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = queryNorm
            0.29738903 = fieldWeight in 5145, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5145)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

C-KAT is a method and a tool which supports the design of feature oriented classification systems for knowlegde based systems. It uses a specialized Heuristic Classification conceptual model named 'classification by structural shift' which sees the classification process as the matching of different classifications of the same set of objects or situations organized around different structural principles. To manage the complexity induced by the cross-product, C-KAT supports the use of a leastcommittment strategy which applies in a context of constraint-directed reasoning. Presents this method using an example from the field of industrial fire insurance

0.0064498456 = product of:
  0.025799382 = sum of:
    0.025799382 = product of:
      0.051598765 = sum of:
        0.051598765 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051598765 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 4.1997 21:10:19