Search (44 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  1. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017) 0.06 
    0.05536002 = product of:
  0.11072004 = sum of:
    0.11072004 = sum of:
      0.0616245 = weight(_text_:language in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0616245 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.30342668 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
      0.049095538 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049095538 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Pages
    S.22-36
    Source
    Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber
  2. Green, R.: Relational aspects of subject authority control : the contributions of classificatory structure (2015) 0.05 
    0.048659198 = product of:
  0.097318396 = sum of:
    0.097318396 = sum of:
      0.062250152 = weight(_text_:language in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.062250152 = score(doc=2282,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.30650726 = fieldWeight in 2282, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2282)
      0.03506824 = weight(_text_:22 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03506824 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2282, 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=2282)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The structure of a classification system contributes in a variety of ways to representing semantic relationships between its topics in the context of subject authority control. We explore this claim using the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system as a case study. The DDC links its classes into a notational hierarchy, supplemented by a network of relationships between topics, expressed in class descriptions and in the Relative Index (RI). Topics/subjects are expressed both by the natural language text of the caption and notes (including Manual notes) in a class description and by the controlled vocabulary of the RI's alphabetic index, which shows where topics are treated in the classificatory structure. The expression of relationships between topics depends on paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships between natural language terms in captions, notes, and RI terms; on the meaning of specific note types; and on references recorded between RI terms. The specific means used in the DDC for capturing hierarchical (including disciplinary), equivalence and associative relationships are surveyed.
    Date
    8.11.2015 21:27:22
  3. Gnoli, C.: Classifying phenomena : part 4: themes and rhemes (2018) 0.05 
    0.047451444 = product of:
  0.09490289 = sum of:
    0.09490289 = sum of:
      0.052821 = weight(_text_:language in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052821 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.26008 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
      0.04208189 = weight(_text_:22 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04208189 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4152, 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=4152)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This is the fourth in a series of papers on classification based on phenomena instead of disciplines. Together with types, levels and facets that have been discussed in the previous parts, themes and rhemes are further structural components of such a classification. In a statement or in a longer document, a base theme and several particular themes can be identified. Base theme should be cited first in a classmark, followed by particular themes, each with its own facets. In some cases, rhemes can also be expressed, that is new information provided about a theme, converting an abstract statement ("wolves, affected by cervids") into a claim that some thing actually occurs ("wolves are affected by cervids"). In the Integrative Levels Classification rhemes can be expressed by special deictic classes, including those for actual specimens, anaphoras, unknown values, conjunctions and spans, whole universe, anthropocentric favoured classes, and favoured host classes. These features, together with rules for pronounciation, make a classification of phenomena a true language, that may be suitable for many uses.
    Date
    17. 2.2018 18:22:25
  4. Molholt, P.: Qualities of classification schemes for the Information Superhighway (1995) 0.04 
    0.03954287 = product of:
  0.07908574 = sum of:
    0.07908574 = sum of:
      0.0440175 = weight(_text_:language in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0440175 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.21673335 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
      0.03506824 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03506824 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = 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)
  0.5 = 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
  5. Qin, J.: Evolving paradigms of knowledge representation and organization : a comparative study of classification, XML/DTD and ontology (2003) 0.03 
    0.031634297 = product of:
  0.063268594 = sum of:
    0.063268594 = sum of:
      0.035214003 = weight(_text_:language in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035214003 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.17338668 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.028054593 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028054593 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The different points of views an knowledge representation and organization from various research communities reflect underlying philosophies and paradigms in these communities. This paper reviews differences and relations in knowledge representation and organization and generalizes four paradigms-integrative and disintegrative pragmatism and integrative and disintegrative epistemologism. Examples such as classification, XML schemas, and ontologies are compared based an how they specify concepts, build data models, and encode knowledge organization structures. 1. Introduction Knowledge representation (KR) is a term that several research communities use to refer to somewhat different aspects of the same research area. The artificial intelligence (AI) community considers KR as simply "something to do with writing down, in some language or communications medium, descriptions or pictures that correspond in some salient way to the world or a state of the world" (Duce & Ringland, 1988, p. 3). It emphasizes the ways in which knowledge can be encoded in a computer program (Bench-Capon, 1990). For the library and information science (LIS) community, KR is literally the synonym of knowledge organization, i.e., KR is referred to as the process of organizing knowledge into classifications, thesauri, or subject heading lists. KR has another meaning in LIS: it "encompasses every type and method of indexing, abstracting, cataloguing, classification, records management, bibliography and the creation of textual or bibliographic databases for information retrieval" (Anderson, 1996, p. 336). Adding the social dimension to knowledge organization, Hjoerland (1997) states that knowledge is a part of human activities and tied to the division of labor in society, which should be the primary organization of knowledge. Knowledge organization in LIS is secondary or derived, because knowledge is organized in learned institutions and publications. These different points of views an KR suggest that an essential difference in the understanding of KR between both AI and LIS lies in the source of representationwhether KR targets human activities or derivatives (knowledge produced) from human activities. This difference also decides their difference in purpose-in AI KR is mainly computer-application oriented or pragmatic and the result of representation is used to support decisions an human activities, while in LIS KR is conceptually oriented or abstract and the result of representation is used for access to derivatives from human activities.
    Date
    12. 9.2004 17:22:35
  6. Svenonius, E.: Facets as semantic categories (1979) 0.03 
    0.029527843 = product of:
  0.059055686 = sum of:
    0.059055686 = product of:
      0.11811137 = sum of:
        0.11811137 = weight(_text_:language in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11811137 = score(doc=1427,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.5815567 = fieldWeight in 1427, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1427)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The paper looks at the semantic and syntactic components of facet definition. In synthetic classificatory languages, primitive terms are categorized into facets; facet information, when, is used in stating the syntactic rules for combining primitive terms into the acceptable (well-formed) complex expressions in the language. In other words, the structure of a synthetic classificatory language can be defined in terms of the facets recognized in the language and the syntactic rules employed by the language. Thus, facets are the "grammatical categories" of classificatory languages and their definition is the first step in formulating structural descriptions of such languages. As well, the study of how facets are defined can give some insight into how language is used to embody information
  7. Mai, J.E.: ¬The future of general classification (2003) 0.02 
    0.02490006 = product of:
  0.04980012 = sum of:
    0.04980012 = product of:
      0.09960024 = sum of:
        0.09960024 = weight(_text_:language in 5478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09960024 = score(doc=5478,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.4904116 = fieldWeight in 5478, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5478)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Discusses problems related to accessing multiple collections using a single retrieval language. Surveys the concepts of interoperability and switching language. Finds that mapping between more indexing languages always will be an approximation. Surveys the issues related to general classification and contrasts that to special classifications. Argues for the use of general classifications to provide access to collections nationally and internationally.
  8. Zeng, M.L.; Panzer, M.; Salaba, A.: Expressing classification schemes with OWL 2 Web Ontology Language : exploring issues and opportunities based on experiments using OWL 2 for three classification schemes 0.02 
    0.02490006 = product of:
  0.04980012 = sum of:
    0.04980012 = product of:
      0.09960024 = sum of:
        0.09960024 = weight(_text_:language in 3130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09960024 = score(doc=3130,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.4904116 = fieldWeight in 3130, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3130)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Based on the research on three general classification schemes, this paper discusses issues encountered when expressing classification schemes in SKOS and explores opportunities of resolving major issues using OWL 2 Web Ontology Language.
  9. Maniez, J.: ¬Des classifications aux thesaurus : du bon usage des facettes (1999) 0.02 
    0.021040944 = product of:
  0.04208189 = sum of:
    0.04208189 = product of:
      0.08416378 = sum of:
        0.08416378 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08416378 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00
  10. Maniez, J.: ¬Du bon usage des facettes : des classifications aux thésaurus (1999) 0.02 
    0.021040944 = product of:
  0.04208189 = sum of:
    0.04208189 = product of:
      0.08416378 = sum of:
        0.08416378 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08416378 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00
  11. Foskett, D.J.: Systems theory and its relevance to documentary classification (2017) 0.02 
    0.021040944 = product of:
  0.04208189 = sum of:
    0.04208189 = product of:
      0.08416378 = sum of:
        0.08416378 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08416378 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    6. 5.2017 18:46:22
  12. Howarth, L.C.: Creating pathways to memory : enhancing life histories through category clusters (2008) 0.02 
    0.01906014 = product of:
  0.03812028 = sum of:
    0.03812028 = product of:
      0.07624056 = sum of:
        0.07624056 = weight(_text_:language in 2281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07624056 = score(doc=2281,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.3753932 = fieldWeight in 2281, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    For individuals whose memory and language are intact, making sense of unfamiliar information or objects is a process of matching what is unknown, to what is known through previous learning or experience. The unfamiliar is linked to clusters or categories of the familiar, identifying what is "like" or "nearly like" and excluding all others (De Mey 1982). Most commonly, these are categories on which there is general agreement, sometimes collocated under established terms, labels, or shared naming devices. Classification systems are built on the basis of shared understandings of human knowledge and culture. When memory and/or language are impaired, how does such contextualizing and categorizing occur? Since perception is individual, can a person with cognitive impairment "make sense" of information, an object, a situation, using alternative modes of expression that are less or not language-dependent? This paper reports on preliminary results from a pilot study undertaken as part of exploratory mixed methods research examining the sense-making, sorting, categorization, and recall strategies of individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) resulting from early stage dementia.
  13. Kwasnik, B.H.; Rubin, V.L.: Stretching conceptual structures in classifications across languages and cultures (2003) 0.02 
    0.018675046 = product of:
  0.037350092 = sum of:
    0.037350092 = product of:
      0.074700184 = sum of:
        0.074700184 = weight(_text_:language in 5517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074700184 = score(doc=5517,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.3678087 = fieldWeight in 5517, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5517)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The authors describe the difficulties of translating classifications from a source language and culture to another language and culture. To demonstrate these problems, kinship terms and concepts from native speakers of fourteen languages were collected and analyzed to find differences between their terms and structures and those used in English. Using the representations of kinship terms in the Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) as examples, the authors identified the source of possible lack of mapping between the domain of kinship in the fourteen languages studied and the LCC and DDC. Finally, some preliminary suggestions for how to make translated classifications more linguistically and culturally hospitable are offered.
  14. Giunchiglia, F.; Zaihrayeu, I.; Farazi, F.: Converting classifications into OWL ontologies (2009) 0.02 
    0.018675046 = product of:
  0.037350092 = sum of:
    0.037350092 = product of:
      0.074700184 = sum of:
        0.074700184 = weight(_text_:language in 4690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074700184 = score(doc=4690,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.3678087 = fieldWeight in 4690, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Classification schemes, such as the DMoZ web directory, provide a convenient and intuitive way for humans to access classified contents. While being easy to be dealt with for humans, classification schemes remain hard to be reasoned about by automated software agents. Among other things, this hardness is conditioned by the ambiguous na- ture of the natural language used to describe classification categories. In this paper we describe how classification schemes can be converted into OWL ontologies, thus enabling reasoning on them by Semantic Web applications. The proposed solution is based on a two phase approach in which category names are first encoded in a concept language and then, together with the structure of the classification scheme, are converted into an OWL ontology. We demonstrate the practical applicability of our approach by showing how the results of reasoning on these OWL ontologies can help improve the organization and use of web directories.
  15. Santoro, M.: Ripensare la CDU (1995) 0.02 
    0.015406125 = product of:
  0.03081225 = sum of:
    0.03081225 = product of:
      0.0616245 = sum of:
        0.0616245 = weight(_text_:language in 4940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0616245 = score(doc=4940,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.30342668 = fieldWeight in 4940, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4940)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A detailed examination of the UDC's history, function and future prospects. Among topics discussed are: the early pioneering work of P. Otlet and H. LaFontaine; the development of Colon Classification; the 'UDC versus switching language' debate in the 1970s; the FID standard reference code project; and the recent scheme by Williamson and McIlwaine to restructure UDC completely, converting it into a Colon Classification and also creating a thesaurus drawn from the same classification. Comments that UDC, far from being a 'prehistoric monster', is becoming a sort of test laboratory for developing new and interesting documentation structures
  16. Beghtol, C.: ¬The facet concept as a universal principle of subdivision (2006) 0.02 
    0.015406125 = product of:
  0.03081225 = sum of:
    0.03081225 = product of:
      0.0616245 = sum of:
        0.0616245 = weight(_text_:language in 1483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0616245 = score(doc=1483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.30342668 = fieldWeight in 1483, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.
  17. Green, R.; Panzer, M.: ¬The ontological character of classes in the Dewey Decimal Classification 0.02 
    0.015406125 = product of:
  0.03081225 = sum of:
    0.03081225 = product of:
      0.0616245 = sum of:
        0.0616245 = weight(_text_:language in 3530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0616245 = score(doc=3530,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.30342668 = fieldWeight in 3530, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3530)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Classes in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system function as neighborhoods around focal topics in captions and notes. Topical neighborhoods are generated through specialization and instantiation, complex topic synthesis, index terms and mapped headings, hierarchical force, rules for choosing between numbers, development of the DDC over time, and use of the system in classifying resources. Implications of representation using a formal knowledge representation language are explored.
  18. Fripp, D.: Using linked data to classify web documents (2010) 0.02 
    0.015406125 = product of:
  0.03081225 = sum of:
    0.03081225 = product of:
      0.0616245 = sum of:
        0.0616245 = weight(_text_:language in 4172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0616245 = score(doc=4172,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.30342668 = fieldWeight in 4172, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4172)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to find a relationship between traditional faceted classification schemes and semantic web document annotators, particularly in the linked data environment. Design/methodology/approach - A consideration of the conceptual ideas behind faceted classification and linked data architecture is made. Analysis of selected web documents is performed using Calais' Semantic Proxy to support the considerations. Findings - Technical language aside, the principles of both approaches are very similar. Modern classification techniques have the potential to automatically generate metadata to drive more precise information recall by including a semantic layer. Originality/value - Linked data have not been explicitly considered in this context before in the published literature.
  19. Szostak, R.: ¬A pluralistic approach to the philosophy of classification : a case for "public knowledge" (2015) 0.02 
    0.015406125 = product of:
  0.03081225 = sum of:
    0.03081225 = product of:
      0.0616245 = sum of:
        0.0616245 = weight(_text_:language in 5541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0616245 = score(doc=5541,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.30342668 = fieldWeight in 5541, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5541)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Any classification system should be evaluated with respect to a variety of philosophical and practical concerns. This paper explores several distinct issues: the nature of a work, the value of a statement, the contribution of information science to philosophy, the nature of hierarchy, ethical evaluation, pre- versus postcoordination, the lived experience of librarians, and formalization versus natural language. It evaluates a particular approach to classification in terms of each of these but draws general lessons for philosophical evaluation. That approach to classification emphasizes the free combination of basic concepts representing both real things in the world and the relationships among these; works are also classified in terms of theories, methods, and perspectives applied.
  20. Connaway, L.S.; Sievert, M.C.: Comparison of three classification systems for information on health insurance (1996) 0.01 
    0.014027297 = product of:
  0.028054593 = sum of:
    0.028054593 = product of:
      0.056109186 = sum of:
        0.056109186 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056109186 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 4.1997 21:10:19

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 37
  • f 3
  • d 2
  • chi 1
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 38
  • m 3
  • el 2
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications